THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


d^W^^i 


HENDERSON,  S.  (of  Jefferson  Co.,  Tenn.),  and 
Hamill,  E.  J.,  (of  Tuskegee,  Ala.).  Discussion  on 
Methodist  Episcopacy.  Charleston,  1856.  $4.50 
*  The  famous  Henderson-Hamill  Debate  which 
gained  Dr.  Henderson  a  dLstinguished  reputation. 
With  biographical  sketch  of  the  author  inserted. 
The  appendix  relates  to  historical  matters  in 
Tennessee,  Texas,  Ala.,  etc. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/discussiononmethOOhami 


Henderson,  Rev.  Samuel,  D.D.,  a  native  of 
Jefferson  Co.,  Tenn.,  was  born  March  4,  1817 ; 
united  with  the  church  in  September.  1832. 
Reared  to  the  business  of  a  practical  printer, 
when  quite  a  youth  he  removed  to  Alabama, 
and  established  one  of  the  first  political  news- 
papers of  Talladega,  which  he  published  and  ed- 
ited for  several  years.  He  was  ordained  to  the 
gospel  ministry  in  the  church  in  Talladega  in  1840, 
this  being  his  first  pastorate.  Moved  to  Tuskegee 
in  1846,  where  he  was  pastor  for  twenty-one  years. 
To  the  Baptists  Tuskegee  was,  during  that  period, 
one  of  the  most  important  centres  of  influence  in 
the  State.  In  addition  to  its  refined  and  wealthy 
church  membership,  it  was  the  site  of  the  East 
Alabama  Female  College,  a  property  whose  erec- 
tion cost  our  brethren  not  less  than  $40,000.  It 
was  also  the  seat  of  publication  of  the  Southwestern 
Baptist,  the  denominational  organ  of  the  State, 
Avhich  was  conducted  with  marked  ability  by  Dr.  / 
Henderson,  it  being  then  one  of  the  most  influen-j 
tial  religious  journals  in  the  whole  South.  (Se</ 
Alabama  Baptist  Newspapers.)  In  1868,  Dr  1; 
Henderson  returned  to  Talladega  County  to  thJI 
charge  of  several  country  and  village  churches 
among  the  best  country  churches  in  the  State, 
where  he  is  pleasantly  located  on  a  handsome  and 
fertile  farm,  and  passes  his  time  in  visiting  the 
churches,  writing  for  the  papers,  being  one  of  the 
editors  of  the  Christian  Index,  of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  and 
in  making  further  search  into  the  contents  of  his 
splendid  library.  For  the  last  thirty  years  Dr. 
Hendei'son  has  been  among  the  most  prominent 
and  useful  of  Alabama  ministers.  Liberally  edu- 
cated at  the  start,  he  has  become  one  of  our  eru- 
dite men,  an  able  and  distinguished  preacher,  an 
adviser  of  first-class  judgment,  a  graceful,  cul- 
tivated, and  powerful  writer,  and  withal  a  sound 
theologian,  thoroughly  read-up.  Dr.  Henderson 
has  published  a  number  of  able  sermons,  review 
articles,  and  other  strong  and  well-prepared  docu- 
ments.      It    was     in     !>;«     ri;c:oi,ec;r.n    with     the    RcV. 

'U>i\  ''^  '\  'inspi    'sainiBjui  snra'Bzi}<Ji!q  ponb  'sou  ?napuai  + 
(•0G9:  'sneuT!.!    'LZZ  -d  '\n  -da  •!  '^JeflO  ■Bninuoo  ip-reujag  tpu«g) 
■mi  im  Bxiusa  sopu-ivd  'jinbut  'sim.S   •«!«>  o-"'  e}uiiurep  eid  lasil 
o.ro)«Ains  !.in}unu!S  o.ii!nb>iado.id  i^ni^s  08u  icjiBaS  anjuSait  luisi} 
-duq  mnp  'ttqiA  Jiiiipiipjajui  ns!-"10  uinJOUBHSPTO  sanAjtij  * 


aq?  JO  ao^Bjapora  sbav  aq  ■si.v^fi  uaayg  io^     -ssau 
..rinigsn  puu  .la^od  "xmiS  un^w.  'sanunofj  uohum  Puu 


A 

DISCUSSION 

ON 

METHODIST  EPISCOPACY, 

BETWEEN 

REV.  E.  J.  HAMILL, 

OF  THE   ALABAMA  CONFERENCE ,  AND  PASTOR  OF  THE   METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH,  SOUTH,  TUSKEQEK,  ALA. 

AND 

SAMUEL  HENDERSON, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  TCSKEGKE   BAPTIST   ClIURCn,  AND   EDITOR  OF  THB 
SOUTH   WESTERN  BAPTIST. 

Published  at  Hie  mu'iial  rspest  of  Baptists  and  Methodists. 


"  Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."— Paul. 


C  HARLESTON : 
SOUTHERN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 

229  KING  STREET. 
1   8  5   G. 


Eatsred  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 

Ret.  E.  J.  Hamill  and  Samuel  Henderson, 

In  thcjClcrk's  OfSce  of  the  District  Court  of  South-Carolina. 


CHARLESTON: 

JAMES  AND  WILLIAMS,  PRINTERS, 

16  STATE   STREET. 


1?X 

CONTENTS. 


Episcopal  Methodism — anti- American,  .     .     .    U    .        1 

LETTER  I. 

Episcopal  Methodism  not  anti- American. 

Wesley's  loyalty;  Methodists  love  their  doctrines;  General 
Conference  cannot  change  doctrines;  Ministers  called  of 
God,  and  sent  out  by  His  people;  Two  orders  in  the  Minis- 
try; Bishop  Hamline's  resignation;  Apostolic  itinerancy; 
Lay  delegation;  Peculiar  institution;  A  bishop  has  no  vote; 
Members  tried  by  their  societies;  Freedom  of  opinion;  Ap- 
pointing power  of  bishops  exercised  wisely;  Bishops  hold 
no  Church  property;  Morbid  imagination 13 

REPLY  TO  LETTER  I. 

!*    Courtesy  extended;  Two  enquiries;  Great  names  do  not  change 

ft        error  into  truth;  The  power  of  a  religious  theory  true  or 

'  3,       false,  in  the  formation  of  character;  Our  Position  Defined; 

g       Lexicographical  definition  of  terms;  Application  of  these 

definitions  to  the  subject  in  debate;  Annual  and  General 

Conferences  composed    only  of   bishops   and  travelling 

preachers;  Exclusion  of  laymen  from  these  bodies;  The 

P        clergy  the  basis  of  representation;  Episcopacy  never  to  be 

^        changed;  an  effort  to  change  it  rebuked;  The  legislative, 

'<         executive,  and  judicial  departments  of  government  all  filled 

2        exclusively  by  the  clergy;  Dr.  Bascom's  opinion;  Methodist 

Oj         Episcopacy  deprives  laymen  of  the  right  of  choosing  their 

jj         own  pastors;  Anecdotes  of  Dr.  Rippon  and  Robert  Uall; 

2  The  argumentum  ad  homincm;  Extent  of  our  endorsement 

3  of  the  article  from  the  Western  Watchman 20 

•*  LETTER  n. 

Methodist  Episcopacy  not  anti-Republican. 

Christian  discussion  profitable;  Foreign  topics;  The  Bible  and 
its  Episcopacy  a  foreign  importation;  Mormon  the  only 
Bystoin  of  religion  of  American  origin;  Mistakes  corrected; 
The  advantages  of  Itinerancy;  The  Democratic  principle 
acknowle<lged,  that  none  ;  hoiild  make  laws  but  those  who 
arc  .subject  to  them;  Itinerants  made  such  by  the  people; 
Itinerants  constitute  their  officers  like  legislatures;  Power 


44.'J3()5 


CONTENTS. 


of  the  General  Conference  over  bishops;  Four  points  in 
which  Church  government  should  be  unlike  civil  govern- 
ment; Methodist  Church  government  bears  a  proper  ana- 
logy to  our  Federal  Government;  Fancy  slietch  of  the 
youth,  Bascom;  Anecdote;  Paul's  definition  of  Episcopos; 
The  Baptist  discipline;  Government  it  describes  unlilic 
our  civil  government;  A  sad  picture;  An  wi-Republican 
feature;  Robert  Hall's  view  of  close  communion.     ...        3i 

REPLY  TO  LETTER  IL 

The  zeal  and  spirit  of  Mr.  Hamill  commended;  Precise  ques- 
tion at  issue;  Foreign  topics;  Episcopacy  a  transplant  from 
Europe;  Analogy  between  the  Church  of  England  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  Singular  way  of  proving 
two  orders  in  the  Methodist  ministry;  Bishops  Soule  and 
Capers;  Mistake  corrected;  The  right  of  appeal;  The  part 
Mr.  Wesley  and  his  first  preachers  took  in  our  Revolution- 
ary War;  Not  probable  that  they  would  impart  tlie  elejnent 
of  Republicanism  to  a  religious  structure;  James  0 'Kelly, 
William  M'Kendrce,  Rice  Haggard,  and  others;  An  effort 
to  reform  the  system  in  1824  and  1828;  insulting  answer  of 
the  General  Conference  to  sundry  memorials;  Exclusion 
and  suspension  of  the  reformers;  Moral  heroism  of  "  fifty 
females:"  Acts  xx.  28;  No  connection  between  Bible  and 
Methodist  Episcopacy;  Sophistry  in  the  use  of  the  term 
"Puseyistic;"  Itinerant  plan;  Episcopacy  defined;  The 
"Democratic  element;"  Baptist  anarchy;  "Close  com- 
munion;" Specimen  of  logic;  Another  '•  fancy  sketch"  from 
the  *'  youthful  Bascom;"  Courtesy  asked *6 

LETTER  HI. 

Methodism  like  its  creed — peace  and  good  will  to 
man. 

Christian  courtesy  appreciated;  A  case  of  twisting;  Precious 
chai-ity  of  Mr.  Graves;  Foreign  topics  again;  Sixty  Ameri- 
can preachers;  Admirable  logic;  Robert  Hall's  opinion  of 
Wesley;  Robert  Hall  repels" the  charge  of  Republicanism 
from  Baptists;  Wesley's  view  of  the  duty  of  American  Me- 
thodists; George  Washington's  prayer  for  the  prosperity  of 
Methodism;  Children's  teeth  not  set  on  edge;  Thomas  Mun- 
cer's  proclamation;  John  Matthias'  and  John  Bocold's 
Republic;  Concession;  Angels  of  the  churches  first  among 
equals;  Paul's  ordination;  Bishop  Capers' opinion;  Human 
instrumentality  designates  the  field  of  ministerial  labor; 
Charles  V.  not  German  Emperor  by  divine  right;  Correc- 
tions; Hon.  and  Rev.  Baptist  Noel's  description  of  the  lay 


CONTENTS. 


management  in  the  Enjrlish  Church;  Retraction  demanded; 
What  would  make  the  Englishmonarchy  exceedingly  Dem- 
ocratic; Supposed  one  hundred  Baptist  itinerants;  In  the 
business  of  Baptist  State  and  Southern  Conventions  we 
have  lay  management;  What  rights  and  privileges  we 
ignore;  O'Kelly's  resolution;  Cordial  acknowledgment; 
The  courtesy  returned.  .    .     • C6 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  IIL 

True  origin  of  Methodist  Episcopacy. 

Hypothetical  argument;  Interesting  letter  from  Mr.  "Wesley; 
Mr.  Wesley  the  father  of  Methodism,  not  of  Episcopal  Me- 
thodism; Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  as  superintendent,  not  as 
bisliop,  of  the  American  Societies;  Mr.  Wesley's  account 
of  it;  Interesting  overture  of  Dr.  Coke  to  Bishop  White 
and  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London;  ThriUini]  letter  from  Pres- 
byter Wesley  to  Bishop  Asbury;  A  sad  mistake  either  in  the 
book  of  Discipline  or  in  History;  The  true  origin  of  Epis- 
copacy; The  General  Confereuce  persists  in  calling  Mr. 
Wesley  by  a  name,  than  which  he  affirmed  he  had  rather 
be  '■  called  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  scoundrel,  a  rascal;^'  The 
"bitter  pill"  suppressed;  Two  interesting  authentic  docu- 
ments placed  in  juxtaposition;  Bishop  Bascom  doubts  the 
historical  probity  of  Sec.  1st  of  the  boolv  of  Discipline; 
Striking  congruity  between  the  caption  of  the  article,  and 
the  text  of  Scripture  superadded;  Being  "  a  little  out  of 
temper"  distorts  one's  fancy;  unlimited  range  of  discus- 
sion asked  and  conceded;  Points  endorsed  in  the  article 
from  the  AVatchman;  Eljullilions  of  passion;  TIjc  charge 
of  falsehood  repelled,  and  an  explanation  asked;  A  chase 
after  the  '•  Iron  Wheel;"  Methodist  Episcopacy  not  so  an- 
cient as  Neb\icba<lne/.zar;  Extract  from  a  "Methodist 
Uymn;'"  John  Wesley  and  Robert  Ilall;  Our  civil  liljcrties 
"so  strangely"  achieved,  despite  Mr.  Wesley's  efforts;  con- 
trast between  General  Washington's  responses  to  the  con- 
gratulatory addresses  from  Methodist  bishops  and  Baptist 
Churches;  The  Munster  affair;  The  "  unkind  cut,"  the  only 
method  of  chastising  clerical  domination;  "  Three  orders 
of  ministers  arc  recognised;"  The  "tug  of  war;"  A  sad 
predicament;  "  Glaring  errors;"  Reversing  propositions; 
Proof;  Constitutional  officers  of  the  Episcopal  Cliurch 
not  private  members;  A  "  solemn  demand  of  an  un(juali- 
fied  retraction"  di'clined;  The  predicament  in  which  the 
demanded  retraction  would  place  "  our  Episcopacy ;" 
Baptist  W.  Noel;  Endorsement  of  the  answer  of  the  bish- 
ops to  sundry  memorials;  The  colors  struck 82 


iv  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  IV. 

Methodism. 

More  twisting:  Encouraging:  admissions;  Mr.  Noel  on  govern- 
ment of  the  English  Church  by  worldly  politicians;  A  queer 
Parliamentary  Episcopacy;  Danger  of  Methodist  Episco- 
pacy being  controlled  by  the  State,  as  English  Episcopacy 
is;  Retraction  refused;  Fate  of  those  who  would  mend  our 
doctrines;  Bishop  Asbury's  claim  upon  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern;  Challenge  to  publish  a  Church  deed;  Freedom  of 
speech  again;  Parallels  upon  the  title  of  Bishop;  Dr.  Coke's 
injudicious  application  for  re-ordination;  Father  Jesse  Mer- 
cer's opinion  of  a  Minister's  Conference;  The  strange  re- 
presentation in  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention;  A  Quar- 
terly Conference  metamorphosed  into  another  Episcopacy; 
Prerogatives  of  the  laity;  Reasoning  which  will  determine 
the  funny  problem;  The  Methodist  Church  government  re- 
sembles our  civil  government  more  closely  than  the  Bap- 
tist Church  government  does,  proved  by  several  logical  ar- 
guments; Twenty  Baptist  ministers  in  Canada,  threw  ofif 
the  yoke  of  Close  Communion;  John  Bunyan's,  Baptist 
Noel's,  and  Robert  Hall's  abhorrence  of  the  same  yoke; 
Connectionalism  of  Methodism;  A  Baptist  excommunicated 
for  joining  a  sister  Church;  Beauties  of  the  Republicanism 
of  the  Alal)ama  Baptists,  as  portrayed  by  their  own  histo- 
rian. Rev.  H.  Ilolcombe;  a  gracious  privilege  rescinded; 
Anti-Republioan  resolutions  of  sixteen  Baptist  Churches;  A 
Baptist's  opinion  of  the  persecuting  spirit  of  the  Claiborne 
Baptist  Churcli;  The  Alabama  Baptist  State  Convention 
votes  that  an  infernal  spirit  gets  into  every  Baptist  com- 
munity, however  small;  Paternal  chastisement;  Baptist  In- 
quisitorial taxation  without  representation;  The  penalty; 
The  modus  operandi  of  assessment;  Uncommon  submissive- 
ness;  Burns;  If  Baptists  are  not  equal  to  angels,  a  civil  go- 
vernment, framed  after  the  model  of  their  Church  govern- 
ment, would  not  do;  Anecdote 112 

REPLY  TO  LETTER  TV. 

Interior  view  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  by  Master 
Artists. 

Advantages  of  religious  controversy;  Discrimination  between 
men  and  principles;  Absolute  clerical  power  unscriptural 
and  dangerous;  A  peep  at  the  inner  vail;  Back  ground 
sketch,  by  Bishop  Bascom,  and  a  full  portraiture,  by  Bishop 
Hamline;  Mr.  Hamline  rewarded  with  a  bishopric;  Analy- 
sis of  the  picture;  Human  credulity  has  some  bounds  which 
clerical  demands  may  not  pass;  A  Presbyterian's  opinion  of 
the  picture;  Mr.  Hamill's  fourth  letter;  Congratulated  oa 
the  improvement  of  his  tone  and  spirit;  The  "  fair"  and 


CONTENTS. 


"  clear"  disc  of  Methodism  makes  John  Wesley  "  start  and 
shudder;"'  "  Twistification;"  Natural  mistake;  Dexterous 
use  of  Mr.  Noel's  armory;  Transparent  perversion;  Articles 
of  faith  and  discipline  imposed  upon  the  laity  without  their 
consent;  .Hudibras;  Another  guotation  from  Hudibras; 
'•'Parallels;''  Mr.  Wesley  in  a  dilemma;  Singular  perver- 
sion of  a  garbled  extract  from  the  Baptist  Confession  of 
Faith;  Mr.  Wesley  competent  to  construe  his  own  act;  A 
digression  in  pursuit  of  Mr.  Hamill^  Four  fundamental 
points  in  Baptist  Church  Polity;  Deacons'  meetings,  asso- 
ciations, and  conventions;  A  terrible  crime  against  "  our 
free  country;"  The  "  decree'^  of  an  "  advisory  council;''  All 
forms  of  government  susceptible  of  abuse;  Reception  and 
expulsion  of  members  in  the  51.  E.  Church;  Father  Mercer; 
the  '•  standards"  on  sacramental  communion;  The  Baptist 
ground  occupied  by  all  denominations;  Robert  Hall's  de- 
nunciation of  the  inconsistency  of  Pedobaptists  in  asking 
the  Baptists  to  sacrilice  a  principle  from  which  the  practice 
of  each  results;  Explanation  asked 127 

LETTER  Y. 
Methodism. 

Methodism  never  connected  with  the  State;  Bro.  Henderson's 
just  denunciation  of  persecution;  points  of  agreement; 
Doctrine  of  the  fathers  of  Trent  rejected;  Fuller's  view  of 
the  extent  of  pastoral  care;  A  bold  admission;  True  cre- 
dentials; A  few  drops  or  a  whole  pond  of  water  insuffi- 
cient to  regenerate;  Bro.  Henderson's  analysis  of  the  ele- 
ments of  a  Church  amended;  The  great  Head  of  the 
Church  legislates  for  her,  and  calls  her  officers;  Exercise 
of  reason  not  superseded:  Conventions  and  creeds  neces- 
sary; The  absence  of  connectionalism  the  cause  of  disorder 
in  the  Baptist  Church;  Exceedingly  powerful  advice; 
Agreement  with  Rob't  Hall;  A  new  style  of  logic;  The 
faith  of  Methodism  not  mended;  Methodism  has  a  single 
grand  platform  of  doctrines;  The  Baptist  Church  may 
have  ten  thousand  varying  creeds,  and,  therefore,  cannot 
witli  accuracy  Ije  styled  The  Baptist  Cliurch;  The  Hiwas- 
see  Baptist  Association;  Baptist  Churches  have  no  legis- 
lative representatives  at  all;  Their  practice  better  than 
their  theory;  Mr.  Wesley  did  prefer  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
Church  government;  Unique  reasoning;  Mercer  favors  a 
platform  similar  to  that  of  Methodism;  An  interior  view 
of  the  trial  of  members;  The  challenge  to  publish  a  deed 
refused;  Power  of  bishops  in  civil  mailers;  The  generosity 
of  the  Gen'rul  Conference  in  making  bishops  of  its  ene- 
mics;  Chief  l)usiiicss  of  an  Annual  or  General  Conference; 
Why  should  the  laity  act  in  two  Cliurch  courts  upon  the 
same  cases?  Distinction  between  the  act  of  distributing  miu- 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


isters  and  other  Church  business;  Baptist  itinerancy  a^ain; 
A  Georgia  Baptist  Conference  of  ministers;  Father  Mercer; 
Church  removals  liliC  removals  by  the  President;  Bishop 
Hamline's  view  excessively  Republican;  A  chance  for  a 
pretty  burst  of  indignation 154 

Analogy. — Analogy  between  the  Methodist  Church  govern- 
ment and  the  United  States  government,  shown  in  many 
particulars;  Consistency  would  require  the  opposers  of  Me- 
thodism to  seek  the  destruction  of  our  civil  Republic; 
Other  Baptist  disorders;  Melancholy  spectacle;  Popery  in 
the  Berlin  Baptist  Church,  as  their  poets  say;  Opposition 
preaching;  Explanation;  Glaring  errors;  Baptist  piety  will 
do  good  in  spite  of  its  defective  government;  Concession.        172 

REPLY  TO  LETTER  V. 

Methodist  Church  Property  Case. 

The  "  sun  "  and  "  moon  "  of  "  our  Episcopacy  "  slightly 
eclipsed;  An  interesting  engagement  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  "  terrible  army  with  banners;"  A  circuit  rider 
slain,  and  a  bishop  put  hcrrs  dc  combat;  '•  Our  Episcopacy" 
sues  "  our  Episcopacy;"  Two  important  principles  evolved 
in  the  suit ;  Extracts  from  the  speeches  of  Slessrs.  Lord 
and  Johnson,  the  counsel  for  the  claimants;  Episcopal  Me- 
thodism an  aristocracy,  which  "  admits  no  constituents;" 
The  decision  of  the  court;  Each  party  recognizing  the  deci- 
sion, the  one  by  yielding  to,  the  other  by  accepting  the 
award;  The  relative  ability  of  the  United  States'  Circuit 
Court,  and  "  an  obscure  local  organ,"  to  injure  "  our 
Episcopacy;"  Sorrowful  light;  More  than  a  million  of  the 
"rank  and  file"  of  the  "terrible  army"  slain  at  "  one  fell 
swoop;"  More  about  the  "  Democratic  element."      .    •    .      178 

Friendly  greeting;  Reasonable  expectations  disappointed ; 
The  Munster  affair  again;  A  civil,  not  a  religious  move- 
ment; A  sprinkling  of  sprinklers  among  the  insurgents; 
Buck;  Ihe  Ink  Fish;  An  interesting  syllogism;  The  "  four 
points"  vindicated;  Episcopal  remedy  for  Church  disor- 
ders worse  than  the  disease;  Dead  palsy;  Ministers'  and 
deacons'  meetings  again;  A  practical  question  propounded 
to  the  laity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  "  Hender- 
sonian"  logic;  A  "strictness  of  speech"  that  cuts  two 
ways;  No  legislative  authority  given  to  the  Churches  by 
Christ  and  the  Apostles;  A  stride  towards  Rome;  Some 
plain  questions  asked;  The  advantage  which  "our  Episco- 
pacy" might  have  been  to  Paul  and  the  primitive  Churches, 
in  rectifying  their  disorders;  "  Duplicity;"  Not  responsible 
for  results,  where  facts  are  stated;   Unkind  insinuation  in 


CONTENTS.  vii 


regard  to  Bishops  McKendroe  and  Bascom;  The  "man  of 
straw"  betraying  tokens  of  sensibility;  The  charge  of  sec- 
ond-handed qnotations,  and  garbling;  An  enquiry  after  the 
"symbols  of  faith,  called  creeds"  in  the  apostolic  age; 
Supposed  to  be  the  New  Testament;  Those  who  adopt  it 
as  their  only  rule  of  faith  and  conduct  have  something 
which  can  be  "  accurately  styled  Church  Government;" 
Satisfactory  explanation 194 


The  Contrast. 

The  contrast  between  Methodist  Episcopacy  and  our  civil 
governments,  State  and  National,  in  seventeen  distinct  and  . 
fundamental  points;  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the 
only  denomination  of  Protestants  in  the  United  States, 
from  whose  ecclesiastical  bodies  all  laymen  are  excluded 
by  constitutional  law;  Not  a  fact  contested  which  has  been 
alleged  in  the  discussion;  The  "  Democratic  element"  in 
Episcopal  Methodism,  if  it  exists  at  all,  must  exist  not- 
withstanding all  these  facts;  Synopsis  and  application  of 
the  argument;  Conclusion 213 

Letter  to  Messrs.  David  Cloptoa,  John  B.  Bilbro,  and  Robert 
L.Mayes 226 

LETTER  YI. 

The  Methodist  Book  Concern;    A  valuable  auxili- 
ary of  the  Gospel;  And  a  holy  charity;  Hon. 
Ilufus  Choate's  view  of  Methodism;  The  con- 
trast reviewed. 
Mr.  Lord's  history  of  the  Book  Concern;   Built  up  by  the 
preachers,  and  therefore,  held  in  trust  by  them  for  two 
holy  uses;  Its  charity  like  Job;  Its  control  by  the  ministry 
praiseworthy;  The  mutilated  resolution;  The  Court  decrees 
that  the  General  Conference  has  no  proprietary  interest  in 
the  Preaching  Houses;   Lay  management  of  the  largest 
revenue  of  the  Church 229 

PniN'crPLKS  OF  THE  CiiuRCii  PROPERTY  Case. — Do  civil  law- 
yers understand  Church  polity  better  than  judicious  minis- 
ters? Legal  opinions  versus  Church  standard;  Louisville 
Conventions;  Dr.  Elliott  and  Hon.  Rufus  Choate  against  a 
legal  Fiction;  The  Church, South,  did  not  recover  its  rights 
upon  false  principles;  The  case  stated;  Principles  applica- 
ble to  the  Book  Concern  property,  and  inapplicable  to 
Church  polity;  Pleadings  of  counsel;  Consent  of  a  majority 
ia  all  departments  of  the  Church  to  a  division  of  the  Book 


viii  CONTENTS. 

Concern  Fund;  Plan  of  separation  contingent;  Power  as- 
cribed to  General  Conference  wholly  unfounded;  The  veto 
power  of  an  Annual  Conference;  Protest  of  laity  in  the 
case  of  a  distinguished  minister  of  the  Georgia  Conference; 
Lawyers'  opinion  of  a  Church  in  the  Methodist  sense;  No- 
tion that  the  General  Conference  could  become  Socinian, 
or  Baptist;  Ministers  of  every  Church  can  become  Moham- 
medans; Another  could  and  would;  Methodist  doctrines 
not  established  by  vote;  The  glory  of  Christ  cannot  be 
voted  away;  Mr.  Benson's  testimony;  Louisville  Conven- 
tion; Opinion  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyer  in  the 
United  States,  the  Hon.  RufusChoate;  Methodism  proceeds 
on  the  plan  of  our  grand  secular  union;  The  true  sover- 
eign; The  preachers  in  a  mass,  acting  in  obedience  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people;  The  Conference  which  organized  Me- 
thodism was,  in  a  remarkable  degree,  analogous  to  the  ^ 
Convention  which  created  the  Federal  Constitution,  in 
1787;  Annual  and  General  Conferences  subordinate  agen- 
cies of  the  Church;  Mr.  Wesley  testifies  that  some  thousands 
in  the  United  States  desired  his  advice;  Eighty-three 
preachers  cannot  be  magnified  into  some  thousands;  Mr. 
Choate's  only  error;  The  case  proves  the  all-controlling 
power  of  the  laity 238 

Miscellaneous. — Why  Muncer's proclamation  is  quoted;  Bap- 
tists not  ranked  with  Campbellites;  Concurrence  with 
Baptist  luminaries;  An  answer;  Another  serious  error; 
Constituents  of  the  Quarterly  Conference;  The  preacher 
has  no  vote  in  the  trial  of  a  member;  Logic  of  the  exposure 
of  Baptist  disorders 252 

The  Contrast.— The  contrast  twice  dead;  The  Church  legis- 
lates in  minor  matters  only;  Distinction  between  the  pro 
vince  of  human  and  divine  legislation;  How  the  discipline 
was  formed;  Conference  laws  like  Acts  of  Legislatures; 
Discipline  not  amended;  Duality  of  General  Conference 
jurisdictions  demanded  by  the  people;  Bishop's  term  of 
office  like  that  of  the  supreme  judges:  Subject  to  a  like 
impeachment;  General  Conference  constituted  like  the 
United  States  Senate;  Is  one  State  nearly  equal  to  thir- 
teen in  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention?  Bishop's  power 
of  removal  less  than  the  President's;  Officers  of  Method- 
ism chosen  as  directly  from  the  people  as  civil  officers;  The 
right  of  petition  as  unbounded  as  in  Congress;  An  absurd- 
ity exposed;  Mr.  Wesley's  advice;  Bishops  have  no  legis- 
lative powers  ;  Restrictions  upon  Annual  and  General 
Conferences;  What  would  dethrone  Christ  as  King  in  Zion; 
The  only  right  of  the  clergy  in  Church  buildings;  The 
contrast  and  the  analogy,  both  exist  in  their  proper  places; 
A  pleasant  close;  The  discussion  useful;  The  pious  will  do 


CONTENTS.  ix 

good  anywhere;  Charity  indispensable;  The  publication  of 

the  discussion,  without  note  or  comment,  proposed.   .    .    .      254 

REPLY  TO  LETTER  V^I. 

Methodist  Church  Property  Case  Again. 

Error  must  be  removed  before  Truth  can  be  established;  No 
foundation  for  Episcopacy  in  the  Scriptures,  according  to 
its  most  able  defenders;  Time,  place,  and  circumstances 
supply  its  only  defence;  Manifest  perversion  and  miscon- 
struction of  arguments;  The  objects  for  which  the  Book 
Fund  was  raised,  not  the  subject  of  debate;  Changing  the 
issue;  Another  specimen  of  Methodist  logic;  The  "  holy 
charity"'  not  too  holy  for  lay  management;  A  plain  state- 
ment of  the  case;  The  question  at  issue  between  the  parties; 
Decision  of  the  court;  Mr.  Choate's  "  view  of  Method- 
ism "  answered  by  Mr.  Johnson,  declared  sophistical  by 
the  court,  and  overruled;  Diflerence  between  a  General 
Conference,  possessing  sovereign  power,  and  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  possessing  limited  powers;  Mr.  AVes- 
ley's  letter  grantwg  the  request  of  his  American  children; 
Application  of  tiie  principles  involved  in  the  law  suit  to 
the  entire  .system  of  Methodism;  An  inventory  of  facts;  Are 
legal  gentlemen  of  the  first  distinction,  and  learned  judges, 
capable  of  understanding  "  the  Book  of  Discipline"  and 
"  the  History  of  Methodi.sm."'  when  they  are  in  evidence 
before  them?  A  trilemma;  Some  credit  ir,  due  the  solemn 
decisions  of  our  National  Courts 264 

TiiK  Standards. — Another  appeal  to  the  standards,  in  search 
of  the  "democratic  elemenl;"  Watson's  Theological  Insti- 
tutes; Prof.  C.  F.  Deems;  Judge  Longstreet;  Lorenzo  Dow; 
Isaac  Taylor;  Rev.  K.  Abbey;  Aristocracy;  An  interesting 
experiment  suggested;  A  transfer  of  property  implies  pro- 
prietorship; Protests;  Judicial  exposition  of  Methodism;  An 
odium  which  is  proof  against  all  '•  protests;"  The  •'  could  " 
and  the  "  would  "  of  the  General  Conference  not  subject  to 
the  Churches;  Not  likely  that  the  same  men  would  act 
dilTerently  in  a  General  and  Annual  Conference;  Another 
extract  from  the  Opinion  of  the  Court;  Three  remarkable 
conclusions;  How  a  cypher  in  the  premises  becomes  "  an 
all-controlling"  numerical  number  in  the  conclusion;  An 
improvement  on  Bishop  Taylor's  discovery  of  Truth  with- 
out evidence;  How  a  system  of  government  which  "has 
no  constituents"  is  "modified  after  our  grand  secular 
union;"  Synopsis.       285 

Mlscellaxhol-s. — Mr.  Wesley,  and  not  "  the  will  of  the  laity, 
acting  through  the  ministry,"  the  father  of  American  Me- 
thodism; The  Munstcr  insurrectionists  sustain  no  such  rcla- 


CONTENTS. 


tion  to  the  Baptists;  The  authority  of  creeds;  The  Method- 
ist Church  more  holy  than  the  Lord's  table;  The  jurisdiction 
of  Quarterly  and  Annual  Conferences;  The  Book  of  Disci- 
pline responsil)le  for  the  error;  The  relative  power  of  a 
Methodist  and  Baptist  pastor;  "Anarchy  and  confusion, 
called  Baptist  Church  government;"  "  Tastes  will  differ;" 
An  illustrative  anecdote 298 

The  Contrast. — A  modest  pledge;  A  wonderful  draft  upon 
popular  credulity;  The  voluntary  adoption  of  a  form  of 
government  does  not  make  it  Republican;  An  essential 
change  in  the  constitution  of  Methodism  not  submitted  to 
the  laity  for  confirmation;  Judges  and  military  officers  not 
law-making  authorities;  The  constituents  of  a  General 
Conference  and  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  con- 
trasted; Senate  of  the  United  States;  Baptist  Conventions 
not  legislative  bodies,  therefore,  cannot  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  the  Churches;  Seventh,  eleventh,  and  fifteenth 
points  not  identical  with  the  fifth;  Bishop  Hamline  sta- 
tioned to  guard  the  eighth  point;  "  Philadelphia  Church 
Advocate;"  Question  for  the  Protestant  Methodists  to 
answer;  "  Protests"  vs.  Facts;  The '•  Standards;"  Bishop 
Bascom  detailed  to  guard  the  fourteenth  point;  Clerical 
absolutism;  Trustees  of  Church  property;  Something  about 
"  killing  and  plucking  up  by  the  roots,"  what  the  fathers 
of  "  our  Episcopacy"  planted;  The  sevmieen  points  sustain- 
ed; Mr.  Hamill  the  antagonist  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States,  not  ours;  An  important  concession  the  basis 
of  a  strange  conclusion;  Was  apostolic  Church  government 
"a  disjointed  system  of  anarchy  and  confusion?"  The 
Church  government  adopted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
preferable  to  that  despotic  "  scheme  yclept "  Methodist 
Episcopacy,  fastened  upon  Methodists  by  Wesley  and  sixty 
travelling  preachers,  in  1784;  Proposition  in  regard  to  the 
joint  publication  of  the  discussion;  Concession  to  secure 
this;  Reciprocal  courtesy;  Conclusion.    ..*....      301 


LETTER  VII. 
The  Discussion. 
Three  errors  of  fact;  Their  correction  requested. 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  VIL 

Misapprehension  of  argument;  The  "  first  error  of  fact"  may 
be  corrected  when  the  "  standards"  are  mended,  and  the  ju- 
dicial records  of  the  countiy  rectified;  Second  "  error  of 
fact;"  Third  "  error  of  fact;"  The  "  seventh  wonder;"  Mu- 
tual call  for  the  publication  of  the  discussion,  by  Baptists 
and  Methodists 321 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  introducing  the  following  pages  to  the  public,  it  is  proper  that 
we  give  a  succinct  statement  of  the  origin  of  the  discussion,  as  well 
as  the  reasons  which  have  induced  us  to  publish  it  in  this  form. 

In  the  month  of  April,  1855,  an  article  was  copied  into  the  columns 
of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist,'  from  the  'Western  Watchman,'  en- 
titled "  Episcopal  Methodism,  anti- American."  [The  article  from 
the  '  Western  Watchman'  is  inserted  in  the  Tolume,  because  of  its 
connection  with  the  discussion.]  The  pastor  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  Tuskegee,  tne  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill,  feeling  that  in- 
justice had  been  done  his  denomination  in  that  article,  wrote  a  reply 
to  it,  which  reply  was  countersigned  by  three  members  of  his  charge, 
and  offered  it  to  the  editors  of  the  '  Baptist,'  for  publication.  It 
was  cheerfully  accepted;  and  as  the  junior  editor  of  that  paper,  Rev. 
J.  M.  Watt,  was  about  retiring  from  his  position,  it  devolved  upon 
the  senior  editor  to  rejoin  to  that  communication.  The  editor 
felt  called  upon,  in  terms  which  he  could  not  mistake,  cither  to  re- 
pudiate the  article  from  the  '  Watchman,'  or  to  defend  it.  And 
while  he  freely  acknowledged  that  there  was  a  portion  of  that  ar- 
ticle obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  injustice,  from  which  he  cheerfully 
withdrew  any  implied  endorsement  which  its  simple  republication 
involved,  he  at  the  same  time  felt  bound  to  maintain,  that  the  main 
scope  of  the  argument  it  contained,  was  subject  to  no  such  charge, 
and  could  be,  in  his  opinion,  successfully  maintained.  (Perhaps  it 
is  due  to  the  editor,  to  state,  that  the  article  from  the  '  Watchman' 
was  copied  by  his  junior  associate,  and  in  print  some  time  before  he 
saw  it.)  lie  therefore  took  th»  ground,  "  That  tue  Eriscoi'vcv  OF 
Methodism  is  anti-Dkmocuatic  and  anti-Rei'lulican;  that  in  so 
n 


xii  INTRODUCTION. 

FAR  AS  ITS  OPERATION'  IS  UNRESTRICTED  BY  MODIFYING  AGENCIES,  IT  IS 
ESSENTIALLY  AND  NECESSARILY  IN   DIRECT  ANTAGONISM  TO   THE   GENIUS 

OF  OUR  FREE  INSTITUTIONS ;"  and  that  its  origin  and  history,  up  to  this  time, 
had  developed  a  series  of  facts  and  principles  totally  irreconcilable  tcith  Ame- 
rican Democracy.  On  the  other  baud,  the  pastor  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  maintained,  That  the  analogy  between  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  Government  and  the  government  op 
THE  United  States,  in  those  points  in  which  the  great  Ilead  of  the  Church 
has  allowed  scope  for  human  legislation,  was  striking.  This  position  he 
believed  he  could  satisfactorily  establish,  and  therefore  felt  bound 
to  accept  the  issue  tendered  in  the  above  proposition  by  the  senior 
editor  of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist.'  The  discussion  which  vras 
thus  commenced,  continued  in  the  columns  of  the  '  BapUst,'  with 
occasional  intervals,  until  the  latter  part  of  November,  1855_. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  history  of  the  origin  of  a  discussion,  which 
is  now  olTered  to  the  public  in  this  form  by  the  parties,  in  response 
to  the  wishes  of  their  respective  denominations,  which  they,  do  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  disregard.  As  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  some 
seventeen  Baptist  Associations  in  Alabama,  as  well  as  the  Florida 
Baptist  State  Convention,  have  called  on  us  to  publish  it  in  book 
form.  Several  Quarterly  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  South,  have  united  in  the  same  request.  A  few  extracts 
from  the  Minutes  of  some  of  these  bodies,  will  furnish  the  reader 
with  our  apology  for  consenting  to  its  publication  in  this  form: 


From  the  Minutes  of  the  Tuskcgee  Associaiwn. 

"  We  observe  that  a  very  able  discussion  has  lately  been  carried 
on  through  the  columns  of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist,'  between  the 
editor  and  the  Rev.  E.  J.  H.vmill,  relating  to  the  organization  and 
government  of  a  scriptural  Church,  and  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  to 
a  gospel  origin,  and  as  contrasted  with  the  genius  of  our  [civil]  in- 
Btitutions.  Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  this  discussion 
should  be  published  entire,  and  that  such  addenda  be  furnished  by 
the  editor.  Elder  Samuel  Henderson,  as  shall  exhibit  the  teachings 
of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  constitution  and  government  of  a  pro- 
perly organized  Church.  Your  committee  would  recommend  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 


INTRODUCTION.  xiii 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  this  Association  do  most  earnestly  request  the 
editor  of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist,"  Eldci>SAMCEL  Hendedson,  to 
publish,  in  a  more  durable  form,  the  discussion  lately  concluded  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Rev.  E.  J.  ILv:*rrLL,  above  alluded  to,  adding 
thereto  such  remarks  upon  scriptural  Church  organization  and  dis- 
cipline as  he  may  think  expedient.* 

'•'  2.  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Association,  and  of  the  de- 
nomination generally,  are  due  to  Brother  Henderson,  for  the  able 
manner  in  which  he  has  conducted  said  discussion. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  by  the  chair, 
to  raise  funds  to  aid  Brother  Henderson  to  publish  said  discussion 
in  book  form." 

Extract  from  the  proceedings  of  the  Fourth  Quarterhj  Conference,  Taskegee 
StMioh,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  "WTiereas,  a  discussion  has  been  going  on  for  some  time,  in  the 
•"  South  Western  Baptist,'  between  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill  and  Rev.  Sam'l. 
Henderson,  on  the  question  of  the  Republicanism  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church:  And  whereas,  we  believe 
the  publication  of  this  discussion  in  permanent  form  would  promote 
the  interest  of  truth,  and  eflectually  defend  our  Church  polity  from 
unjust  assaults;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  By  the  members  of  the  Fourth  Quarterly  Conference, 
Tuskcgce  Station,  Alabama  Conference,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  that  we  do  recommend  the  publication  of  said  discussion  in 
permanent  form. 

"  Reiolved,  secondly,  That  the  following  persons,  J.  W.  Willis,  J.  H. 
Smith,  and  Dr.  R.  W.  Howard,  be  appointed  a  committee  to  confer 
with  the  Rev.  Samlel  Henderson,  and  other  members  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church,  and  take  such  steps  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  in  or- 
der to  secure  the  joint  publication  of  the  aforesaid  discussion." 


•  For  the  purpose  of  securing  the  co-operation  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ilainill  and  the  Me- 
ihodict  brethren,  m  the  piihlioation  of  the  work,  as  well  as  to  render  it  as  acceptable  as 
possililc  to  all  parties,  the  Ediiorof  the  S.  W.  Bapti»t  supposed  that  his  brethren  would 
not  take  it  amiw,  if  he  declined  acceding  this  reipicsl.  He  has  ir>  course  of  preparation 
Hime  articles  on  "Church  Government,"  which  lie  expects  to  publish  in  a  separate 
form,  la  the  cour'C  of  a  few  months. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION. 

From  the  Minutes  of  the  Coosa  River  Bajitist  Association. 
"  1st.  Resolved,  That* we  highly  approve  both  the  spirit  and  ability 
which  Brother  Henderson  has  evinced  in  the  late  discussion  in  the 
'  South  Western  Baptist,'  with  the  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill,  on  the  ques- 
tion, "Is  Methodist  Episcopacy,  in  its  nature  and  tendencies,  anti- 
Democratic  and  anti-Republican,'"  and  request  that  it  be  published 
as  early  as  possible,  in  a  more  durable  form." 

Taskaloosa  Baptist  Association. 
"  3.  Resolved,  That  we  have  viewed  with  decided  interest  and  sa- 
tisfaction, the  progress  and  result  of  the  late  discussion  on  Methodist 
Episcopacy,  between  the  editor  [of  the  '  S.  W.  Baptist,']  and  Rev. 
Mr.  Hamill,  of  the  Methodist  Church;  and  believing  that  the  cause 
of  truth  would  be  subserved  thereby,  cordially  unite  in  requesting 
Brother  Henderson  to  give  it  to  the  public  in  a  more  convenient 

and  durable  form." 

# 

Central  Baptist  Association. 

*  *  *  *  "  We  are  of  opinion  that  the  publication  of  that  discus- 
sion, in  book  form,  would  greatly  tend  to  promote  the  cause  of  truth. 
We,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 

"  2d.  Resolved,  That  the  editor  of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist'  be 
requested,  at  as  early  a  day  as  will  suit  his  convenience,  to  publish, 
in  book  form,  the  discussion  between  himself  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Hamill,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  above  alluded 
to. 

"  3d.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  at  this 
time,  to  procure  subscriptions  for  said  book." 

Unity  Baptist  Association. 

"  "UTiereas,  the  discussion  on  Episcopal  Church  government,  be- 
tween Revs.  Samuel  Henderson  and  E.  J.  Hamill,  as  recently  pub- 
lished in  the  '  South  Western  Baptist,'  has  been  conducted  in  a  mild 
and  Christian-like  manner,  and  believing  that  the  same  is  worthy  of 
being  placed  in  a  more  durable  form: 

"1.  Resolved,  That  this  Association  most  earnestly  request  the 
Southern  Baptist  Publication  Society  to  publish  said  debate,  with 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

sucli  addenda  as  shall  exhibit  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  as  to 
the  constitution  and  government  of  a  properly  organized  Chuixh, 
as  a  part  of  the  religious  literature  of  the  Baptist  denomination. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Association  are  hereby  ten- 
dered to  Brother  Henderson,  for  the  able  and  Christian-like  manner 
in  which  he  has  conducted  said  discussion." 

Alabama  Baptist  Association. 
"  We  also  recommend  the  publication  of  the  late  discussion  in  the 
'South  Western  Baptist,'  between  the  Rev.  Samuel  Hexdekson  and 
the  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamhx,  in  book  pamphlet  form,  with  such  additional 
matter  on  Church  government,  as  the  said  Rev.  S.  Hendek.sos  may 
desire.'' 

Liberty  Baptist  Association,  {Chambers  County.) 
"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  body,  that  the  publication 
of  the  discussion  recently  concluded  between  Rev.  S.  Henderson 
and  Rev.  E.  J.Hamill,  on  the  tendenciesof  "  Methodist  Episcopacy,  "^ 
would  do  much  for  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  truth;  that  we 
earnestly  request  Brother  Henderson  to  publish  the  same  in  a  dur- 
able form;  that  we  will  assist,  as  far  as  our  ability  will  permit,  in 
its  extensivo  circulation;  and  that  a  committee  of  three  be  appoint- 
ed to  obtain  subscribers  to  the  work." 

Salem  Baptist  Association. 

"Resolved,  That  this  Association  regards  the  recent  discussion  in 
the  '  South  Western  Baptist,'  between  Rev.  Samuel  Henderson  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Hamill,  on  the  subject  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  as  peculiarly 
interesting  to  the  Baptist  denomination,  and  as  calculated  to  en- 
lighten the  people  on  that  subject. 

"Resolved,  That  we  recommend  the  publication  of  said  discussion 
in  a  more  durable  form. 

"Resolved,  That  we  appoint  a  committee  of  three  to  correspond 
with  Brother  Henderson  on  the  subject  of  its  publication,  and  to 
solicit  subscriptions  for  the  work." 

Judson  Baptist  Association. 
"  2.  Revived,  That  the  Editor  of  the  '  S.  W.  Baptist '  be  requested 
to  publish  the  discussion  above  alluded  to  in  book  form,  at  as  early 
a  day  as  will  suit  his  convenience." 


xvi  INTRODUCTION. 

Were  it  necessaTy,  similar  extracts  from  the  Minutes  of  many 
other  Associations  could  be  made.  We  must  add,  however,  that 
the  Baptist  State  Convention  op  Florida,  at  its  recent  session, 
passed  resolutions,  "joining  in  the  request  of  the  various  Associa- 
tions in  Alabama,"  urging  its  publication.  We  would  insert  these 
resolutions,  but  the  Minutes  of  that  body  are  not  in  our  possession. 

Oak  Bowery  Quarterly  Conference,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  Whereas,  a  discussion  has  been  going  on  for  some  time,  in  the 
columns  of  the  '  South  Western  Baptist,'  between  the  Rev.  E.  J. 
Hamill  and  the  Rev.  Sam'l  Henderson,  upon -the  question  of  the 
Republicanism  of  Episcopal  Methodism  ;  And  whereas,  we  believe 
its  publication  in  permanent  form  would  greatly  promote  the  cause 
of  truth — would  commend  the  beautiful  Church  polity  of  Method- 
isna  to  the  admiration  of  the  candid — and  would  effectually  silence 
the  unjust  and  groundless  clamor  against  the  Republicanism  of  Me- 
thodism, now  heard  from  certain  quarters:  And  whereas,  the  spirit 
of  charity  perm-^ating  the  discussion  on  both  sides,  is  a  noble  exam- 
ple of  the  christian  forbearance  we  should  exhibit  toward  our  oppo- 
nents; therefore, 

"Ecsolved,  By  the  members  of  the  Fourth  Quarterly  Conference, 
Oak  Bowery  Circuit,  Alabama  Conference,  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  that  we  do  concur  with  the  Quarterly  Conference  of 
the  Tuskegee  Station,  Alabama  Conference,  in  recommending  the 
publication  of  the  aforesaid  discussion,  and  in  the  adoption  of  such 
measures  as  will  secure  the  same.  • 

SAM'L  ARMSTRONG,  P.  E. 
Jonathan  Ware,  Scc'y-" 

Similar  resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Tuskegee  Circuit,  Ala- 
bama Conference.  P.  R.  Appleby,  Sec^. 

The  pastor  of  the  Methodist  Church  desires  it  to  be  remembered, 
that  the  discussion  was  conducted  in  a  Baptist  journal,  and  was, 
therefore,  known  to  but  few  of  his  Methodist  brethren.  And,  more- 
over, his  ministerial  engagements  and  circumstances  over  which  he 
had  no  control,  prevented  his  attendance  at  any  Methodist  Annual 


INTRODUCTION,  xvii 

Conference,  and  also  at  any  other  Quarterly  Conference  but  his 
own.  Nevertheless,  in  addition  to  the  endorsement  of  his  articles, 
and  the  demand  for  the  publication  of  the  discussion  by  three  large 
and  respectable  Quarterly  Conferences,  there  are  demands  .and  sub- 
scriptions for  the  pu'jlication  of  the  work  from  prominent  members 
of  live  other  stations  and  circuits  in  the  Alabama  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  number,  respectability,  and  earnestness 
of  the  foregoing  requests,  emanating  from  the  two  denominations, 
left  the  parties  no  alternative.  That  the  subject  discussed  is  one  of 
vast  importance,  none  will  deny.  Next  to  those  vital  principles  in 
the  christian  economy,  which  relate  immediately  to  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  all  will  cqlfass  that  we  must  place  the  relations,  rights, 
duties,  and  privileges  of  the  citizenship  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel.  And  any  effort,  humble  though  it  may  be,  which  may  serve 
to  develope  these  relations,  rights  and  privileges,  is  not  unworthy 
the  candid  consideration  of  all  right-minded  christians.  We  flatter 
ourselves  that  the  following  pages  will  not  only  serve  some  good 
purpose  in  this  respect,  but  that  they  will  tend  to  allay  the  viru- 
lence of  sectarianism — that  moral  canker  which  now  so  sadly  mars 
the  beauty  of  Zion — and  also  illustrate  a  truth  which  many  good 
men  are  loath  to  believe,  that  religious  controversy  is  not  incom- 
patible with  the  mutual  exercise  of  the  candor,  forbearance,  and 
charity  which  should  ever  adorn  the  christian  character. 

We,  therefore,  commit  this  volume  to  the  charitable  indulgence 
of  those  who  have  called  for  its  publication,  and  to  the  care  of  Him 
without  whose  "blessing,  all  our  labors  are  in  vain. 

K  J.  HAMILL. 
S.  HENDERSON. 
Tlskegek,  January,  1856. 

P.  S.  We  have  not  felt  at  liberty  to  subject  our  articles  to  any- 
other  revision  than  a  bare  correction  of  typographical  errors. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY. 


From  the  Western  Watchman. 

EPISCOPAL  METHODISM— ANTI-AMEEICAN. 

"  We  are  no  Republicans,  and  never  intend  to  be."— J.  Wesley. 

EPISCOPAL   METHODISM     IS    ANTI-^UIERICAN    IN    ITS    SPIRIT    AND 
TENDENCY,  AND  A   DANGEROUS  FOE    TO    REPUBLICANISM. 

1.  Episcopal  Methodism  was  anti-Anwican  in  its  origin  in 
this  country. — In  1784,  three  regularly  ordained  clergy- 
men were  sent  over  from  England  to  this  country,  one 
of  whom  had  been  ordained  a  bishop.  This  bishop  or- 
dained one  Francis  Asbury  as  the  bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  America.*  The  first  General  Con- 
ference was  held  in  Baltimore,  1T84.  This  Conference 
determined  that  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Church 
should  be  Episcopal — that  is,  a  government  of  bishops. 
Those  who  composed  this  Conference  were  ministers, 
and  only  ministers,  though  there  were  then  in  the  Mc- 

•  Discipline.    Part  I.  chap.  i.  sec.  1. 


2  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

thodist  societies  in  the  United  States,  14,988  members  I 
Now,  here  we  find  that  the  people  were  never  consulted 
at  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
— they  had  no  representatives  present.  But  a^  few  min- 
isters of  themselves  framed  the  government  without  the 
consent  of  the  people,  and  have  held  all  legislative,  ju- 
dicial, and  executive  prerogatives  under  their  own  con- 
trol ever  since.  By  virtue  of  this  usurped  authority, 
this  body  has  imposed  upon  the  people  articles  of  faith, 
without  either  their  advice  or  consent,  and^us  has  vio- 
lated the  free  exercise  of  conscience  and  the  right  of 
private  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  laity,  in  respect  to 
matters  with  which  their  personal  salvation  is  insepar- 
ably connected.  "What  more  has  the  Papacy  done  in 
controlling  the  faith  of  its  adherents  ?  Now,  let  any 
one  compare  the  above  statement  with  the  Declaration 
of  Eights  adopted  by  the  Continental  Congress,  October 
14,  1*I14,*  and  he  will  find  that  the  very  acts  of  despot- 
ism of  which  our  ancestors  complained,  and  which  led 
to  the  adoption  of  our  glorious  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, were  perpetrated  by  these  originators  of  Me- 
thodist Episcopacy  in  the  United  States.  Americanism 
recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  to  frame  their  own 
government.  Episcopal  Methodism  violated  this  right 
in  its  origin.  It  is,  therefore  anti-American  in  its 
origin. 

2.  Episcopal  Methodism  is  anti-American  in  the  sup- 
port it  gives  to  this  unwarranted  assumption  of  power. 

*  Declaration  of  Rights. — "  Resolved,  4,  That  the  foundation  of 
English  liberty,  and  of  all  free  government,  is  a  right  in  the  people 
to  participate  in  their  legislative  council." 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  3 

The  laws  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  raade 
by  the  General  Conference.  The  General  Conference 
is  composed  of  travelling  preachers.  The  members  of 
the  General  Conference  are  appointed  by  the  Annual 
Conferences — the  Annual  Conferences  are  composed  ex- 
clusively of  travelling  preachers.  No  one  can  be  elect- 
ed a  member  of  the  General  Conference  but  a  travelling 
preacher.  No  one  can  vote  for  members  of  the  General 
Conference  but  travelling  preachers.*  The  people  have 
no  representatives  in  the  law-making  department ;  the 
General  Conference  controls  the  entire  Church,  both  in 
its  faith  and  practice,  and  thus  destroys  the  very  foun- 
dation of  all  religious  liberty,  and  provides  a  basis  for 
the  most  absolute  despotism.  Is  not  this  anti-Ame- 
rican ? 

Again  :  the  bishops  arc  appointed  by  the  travelling 
preachers.  They  hold  their  office  during  life,  unless  re- 
moved for  crime.  The  destiny  of  all  the  itinerant  preach- 
ers is  placed  in  the  bishop's  hands  ;  frona  his  decision 
they  have  no  appeal ;  they  must  either  go  to  their  ap- 
pointments or  cease  to  be  travelling  preachers.  This 
places  the  preachers  in  a  state  of  dependence  on  Epis- 
copal power.  Tlicy  can  favor  or  oppress  them  in  giving 
them  good  or  bad  appointments.  They  can  keep  them 
near  home  or  send  them  far  off.  From  these  circum- 
stances the  bishops  acquire  unlimited  power  over  the 
preachers  and  people.  Now,  let  it  be  remembered  that 
this  power  is  assumed — not  delegated  by  the  people  ; 
they  have  no  representative — no  voice — no  vote  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  or  in  the  election  of  the 

*  DiHciplinc.    Part  I.,  cliap.  iii.,  sec.  2  and  3,  f[ucR.  1. 


4  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

bishops,  who  are  the  head  of  the  Church  ;  and  yet,  hy 
their  money  and  influence,  they  support  this  assumed 
power.     Such  support  is  anti- American. 

3.  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  anti-American,  because 
the  assumed  power  which  it  supports  is  frequently  ex- 
ercised in  an  oppressive  manner,  and  may  at  all  times 
be  so  exercised.  The  bishops  possess  unlimited  power 
over  the  preachers  and  the  people.  No  appeal  can  be 
made  from  the  bishop's  designation  of  a  preacher  to  his 
field  of  labor.  The  preacher  may  not  wish  to  go  to  the 
field  assigned,  and  the  Church  may  not  desire  to  have 
the  preacher  who  is  sent  to  them  ;  but  there  is  no  ap- 
peal. Go  he  must,  and  have  him  the  people  must,  or 
they  are  both  liable  to  excommunication  from  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church.  An  instance  or  two  will  il- 
lustrate this  point : 

"At  the  session  of  the  New  York  Conference,  in  1839, 
it  was  in  some  way  intimated  to  the  "Washington  Street 
Church,  in  Brooklyn,  Long  Island,  that  the  Rev.  B. 
GriflSn  was  to  be  appointed  to  that  charge.  The  Church 
accordingly,  through  a  committee  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose, presented  itself  before  the  bishop  and  remonstrat- 
ed against  Mr.  Griffin's  being  sent  to  them  as  their  pas- 
tor. But  the  remonstrance  was  disregarded,  and  Mr. 
GriflSn  was  stationed  at  Washington  Street." 

"At  the  session  of  the  New  England  Conference,  in 
1841,  both  of  the  large  societies  in  Lowell,  Mass.,  peti- 
tioned for  particular  preachers  ;  but  they  were  told  that 
they  should  not  have  the  men  they  asked  for.  One  of 
the  Churches  (St.  Paul's)  then  requested  to  be  left  with- 
out a  supply  by  the  bishop — ^having  made  arrangemehts 
to  employ  a  local  preacher.     But  the  bishop  regarded 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  5 

not  the  request,  but  forced  a  preacher  upon  them.  In 
both  these  cases  the  preachers  petitioned  for  also  added 
their  request  to  the  voice  of  the  Churches  ;  so  that  the 
wishes  of  both  preachers  and  people  were  disregarded. 

"  The  other  Church,  after  being  denied  the  preacher 
they  wanted,  selected  some  four  or  five  others,  and 
stated  to  the  bishop  that  they  would  be  satisfied  with 
either  of  them.  But  no  ;  they  must  not  have  either  ; 
and,  to  cap  the  climax  of  insult,  the  very  man  was  sent 
them  to  whom  they  had  objected.  In  consequence  of 
rejecting  their  preachers  and  electing  others,  they  were 
publicly  declared  to  be  without  the  pale  of  the  Church, 
This  alarming  step  of  excommunicating  whole  Churches 
without  the  form  of  a  trial,  develops  another  of  the  anti- ' 
American  features  of  Episcopal  Methodism — especially 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  subject  was  carried  up  to 
the  bishop,  and  he  approved  of  it,  and  pronounced  it 
Methodism."* 

I  might  multiply  instances  of  this  kind,  but  the  limits 
of  this  tract  will  not  permit.  The  simple  fact,  that  the 
power  thus  assumed  by  Methodist  bishops,  and  counte- 
nanced and  supported  by  the  Episcopal  Church,  may,  at 
any  time,  be  exercised  oppressively,  is  sufficient  to  prove 
that  this  system  is  anti-American  ;  for  Americanism 
makes  no  provision  for  the  exercise  of  oppression,  but 
constantly  guards  against  the  abuse  even  of  delegated 
power.  Episcopal  Methodism,  on  the  contrary,  coun- 
tenances and  supports  the  oppressive  exercise  of  as- 
sumed power.     It  is  therefore  anti-American. 

4.  Episcopal  Methodism  is  anti-American  in  its  direct 

•  "  Book  for  the  Times,"  rP-  Hi-HC 


6  A   DISCUSSION  ON 

tendency  to  suppress  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press. 
That  this  is  its  tendency,  no  one  acquainted  with  the 
system  can  consistently  deny.  Let  a  number  of  mem- 
bers of  an  Episcopal  Methodist  Society  express  their 
conviction  that  the  government  of  their  Church  might 
be  bettered, — let  them  print  their  views  and  circulate 
their  opinions,  and  excommunication  is  the  penalty  at 
once — either  for  orally  discussing  the  matter,  or  print- 
ing their  views.  Suppose  the  press  was  under  the  con- 
trol of  Episcopal  Methodism,  it  could  not  utter  a  senti- 
ment at  variance  with  the  "Discipline"  without  being 
placed  under  interdict.  A  Methodist  preacher  cannot, 
dare  not  publish  a  book  that  shall  encourage  free  in- 
quiry into  Episcopacy,  or  that  will  induce  discussion 
of  its  merits,  without  the  fear  of  exclusion.*  Now, 
how  does  Eome  prevent  the  freedom  of  the  press  where 
she  has  not  political  power  ?  By  this  bugbear  of  excom- 
munication. Place  the  free  press  of  America  under  the 
control  of  Methodist  Episcopal  bishops,  and  there 
could  be  no  free  discussion — Republicanism  would  be 
strangled  and  the  car  of  liberty  rolled  backward.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  press  now  is  under  the  control  of 
the  bishops  ;  the  editors  of  all  the  papers,  magazines, 
books,  tracts,  &c.,  are  appointed  by  the  Conference, 
with  the  approbation  of  the  presiding  bishop. 


♦Discipline.  Part  III.,  cliap.  vi.,  sec.  21. —  "Any  travelling 
preacher  who  may  publish  any  work  or  book  of  bis  own,  shall  be  re- 
sponsible to  his  Conference  for  any  obnoxious  matter  or  doctrine 
therein  contained."  Compare  these  facts  with  the  following,  in 
the  Declaration  of  Rights. — "Resolved:  That  the  people  have  a  right 
peaceably  to  assemble,  consider  of  their  grievances,  and  petition 
the  King  ;  and  that  all  prosecution,  prohibitory  proclamations,  and 
commitments  for  the  same  are  illegal." 


METHODIST  EPLSCOPACY.  t 

If  I  am  an  American  I  must  forget  it  in  becoming  an 
Episcopal  Methodist.  If  I  love  Republicanism,  I  must 
not  express  my  preference  for  it  in  the  government  of 
the  Church  of  which  I  am  a  member.  Freedom  of  speech 
is  denied  me  on  pain  of  exclusion.  To  speak  of  Repub- 
licanism in  Church  government  is  to  "  sow  dissension," 
and  that  is  to  be  punished  with  excommunication. 
Americanism  encourages  freedom  of  speech  ;  Episcopal 
Methodism  suppresse*s  it ;  it  is,  therefore,  anti- American, 

5.  Episcopal  Methodism  is  anti-American  in  support- 
ing the  assumption  of  temporal  power  by  its  bishops. 
Why  is  it  that  we  fear  Romanism  ?  Kot  simply  because 
the  votaries  of  the  pope  yield  assent  to  the  ridiculous  su- 
perstitions of  their  debasing  religion ;  not  simply  because 
their  priests  and  bishops  exercise  oppressively  an  as- 
sumed power.  This  last  feature  is  anti- American  in 
Romanism  as  well  as  Episcopal  Methodism;  but  this 
does  not  trouble  us.  If  Romanists  or  Methodists  choose 
to  degrade  themselves  by  submission  to  priests  or 
bishops,  and  voluntarily  sacrifice  that  liberty  which,  as 
freemen,  they  have  a  riglit  to  enjoy,  it  is  their  own 
fault.  But  the  supporting  of  assumptions  to  temporal 
power  is  just  cause  of  alarm.  The  effort  of  Romish 
bishops  to  gain  the  control  of  all  the  Catholic  Church 
property,  has  been  loudly  decried,  and  some  noble  in- 
stances have  occurred  where  even  Roman  Catholic  con- 
gregations have  determined,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
freedom  as  American  citizens,  to  resist  these  arrogant 
demands.  But  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  Episcopal 
Methodist  bisliops  make  the  same  demand,  and  this  de- 
mand is  submitted  to  without  a  murmur,  by  American 
Methodists.      WJio   hold  the  deeds  for  every  incli  of 


8  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ground  and  every  Episcopal  Methodist  Church  in  the 
land  ? — The  Conference,  alias  the  bishops.  Where  is  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  congregation  that  has  dared  to  fol- 
low the  example  of  the  Roman  Catholic  congregations 
above  alluded  to,  in  opposing  this  arrogant  assumption 
of  temporal  power  ?  Let  Americans  in  the  Episcopal 
Methodist  Church  blush  to  be  told  that,  with  all  their 
boasted  intelligence  and  freedom,  they  fear  excommuni- 
cation from  their  bishops  more  than  Roman  Catholics 
feared  the  pope's  nuncio,  or  the  bulls  of  Pio  None  him- 
self. 

A  vast  amount  ef  property  is  thus  held  under  the  con- 
trol of  Methodist  bishops.  A  lay  member  of  the  Church 
has  no  voice  in  the  disposition  of  funds  which  he  him- 
self aided  to  raise.  The  preachers  can  dispose  of  it  only 
by  suggesting  the  way  in  which  it  may  be  appropriated. 
The  bishops  control  it,  and  may  designate  it  as  they 
s^e  fit. 

Now,  is  there  no  danger  to  American  liberty  from  a 
hierarchy  possessing  such  ample  pecuniary  resources 
as  these  ?  Are  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Methodist 
Church  so  immaculately  pure  as  to  be  beyond  the  reach 
of  selfish  and  sectarian  preferences  ? — May  the  time  not 
arrive  when  they  will  consider  it  to  be  their  duty  to  use 
their  vast  influence  and  assumed  power  in  politics  ? — 
May  they  not  conclude  that  they  will  be  doing  God  ser- 
vice by  using  their  influence  to  induce  political  action 
which  will  favor  Episcopal  Methodism  ?  The  support 
which  they  see  the  lay  members  of  their  Churches  giv- 
ing to  their  assumptions  of  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual 
power,  has  a  direct  tendency  to  encourage  them  to  ex- 
ercise that  power  in  controlling  the  affairs  of  State  for 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  9 

their  own  advancement,  and  so  as  to  secure  the  continu- 
ance of  their  power  unmolested.  The  man  who  can  see 
and  feel  it  right  to  exercise  a  bishop's  oiBce  in  the  Epis- 
copal Methodist  Church,  can  scarcely  see  it  wrong  to 
exercise  a  monarch's  oflSce  in  the  State  ;  for  both  are 
alike,  and  equally  anti- American.  This  leads  me  to  the 
second  member  of  my  proposition,  viz  : 

EPISCOPAL  METHODISM  IS  A  DANGEROUS   FOE  TO   REPUBLICANISM. 

I  have  shown  beyond  dispute,  that  it  is  an  ecclesias- 
tical despotism.  Any  one  who  will  carefully  examine 
the  system,  will  perceive  that  Eepublicanism  and  Epis- 
copal Methodism  are  perfectly  antagonistic.  Eepub- 
licanism admits  and  insists  on  the  right  of  the  people  to 
frame  the  government  under  which  they  are  to  live  ;  but 
Episcopal  Methodism  acknowledges  no  such  right.  Ee- 
publicanism provides  for  the  correction  of  abuses  in  ad- 
ministering government,  by  the  frequent  election  of 
law-makers  by  the  voice  of  the  people.  Episcopal 
Methodism  places  it  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  to 
change  their  law-makers,  however  oppressive  their 
enactments  may  be.  Eepublicanism  provides  also  for 
the  election,  by  the  people,  of  executive  and  judicial 
oflScers  ;  Episcopal  Methodism  assumes  these  powers 
without  consulting  the  people.  In  a  Eepublic,  the  pub- 
lic moneys  and  public  buildings  are  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  sovereign  people  ;  but  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  these  are  controlled  by  the  bishops. 
In  a  Eepublic,  the  people  choose  their  own  public  ser- 
vants ;  but  Episcopal  Methodism  forces  on  the  people 
such  teachers  as  the  bishop  may  choose  to  send  them. 


10  '  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

I  might  go  on  and  indefinitely  exhibit  the  features  of 
antagonism  between  the  two.  But  will  not  these  suffice 
for  any  unprejudiced,  independent  American  ?  Can  it 
be  possible,  then,  that  the  influence  of  this  anti- American 
hierarchy  can  be  anything  but  injurious  to  Eepublican- 
ism  ?  In  ecclesiastical  matters,  the  laity  are  but  the 
tools  of  the  bishops  and  priests — they  may  become  so  in 
political  matters.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  developed  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  that  religious  liberty  mustpre- 
,  cede  civil  liberty  ;  and  it  is  no  less  true  that  an  eccle- 
siastical despotism  will,  sooner  or  later,  if  permitted  to 
exert  its  influence  unchecked,  beget  political  despotism. 

This  is  the  direct  tendency  of  Episcopal  Methodism — 
for  if  despotism  be  right  in  the  Church  it  is  right  in  the 
State — if  it  be  wrong  in  the  State  it  is  wrong  in  the 
Church.  But  Episcopal  Methodism  declares  it  to  be 
right  in  the  Church ;  it  must,  therefore,  encourage  it  in 
the  State.  So  far  as  the  influence  of  Episcopal  Method- 
ism extends,  so  far  the  true  spirit  of  freedom  is  crushed, 
and  our  Republicanism  is  endangered. 

But  again  :  the  very  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  a  free 
people.  Suppose  a  crisis  to  arrive  in  political  action, 
in  which  the  hierarchy  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  inter- 
ested. From  the  dependence  of  all  the  parts  on  one 
great  central  power,  it  is  easy  to  perceive  ho\f  the  suf- 
frages of  most  of  the  members  may  be  controlled  by  the 
bishops.  Let  the  bishop  suggest  to  the  presiding  el- 
ders that  the  interests  of  their  ecclesiastical  despotism 
will  be  subserved  by  the  election  of  a  certain  set  of  men 
to  office  ;  the  presiding  elders  use  their  influence  over 
the  preachers,  the  preachers  over  the  class-leaders,  and 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  H 

the  class-leaders  over  their  class-members,  and  thus  the 
balance  of  power  in  a  political  contest  may  rest  in  the 
hands  of  seven  Episcopal  Methodist  bishops.  There  is 
as  much  danger  of  this,  as  there  is  of  Eomanism  accom- 
plishing a  similar  result,  provided  the  occasion  requires 
it.  It  may  be  said  that  the  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  are  too  independent  to  be  thus  influ- 
enced ;  but  while  they  submit  to  the  degradation  to 
which  I  have  shown  they  are  subjected  in  Church  mat- 
ters, let  them  not  speak  of  independence  in  political 
matters.  Let  them  become  ecclesiastically  free,  and 
then  it  may  be  hoped  that  they  would  dare  to  become 
politically  free,  if  the  bishop  undertook  to  prevent  it. 

I  have  thus  briefly  shown  that  Episcopal  Methodism 
is  anti-American  in  its  spirit  and  tendency,  and  that  it 
is  a  dangerous  foe  to  Eepublicanism.  I  have  shown 
that  it  had  its  origin  in  usurpation  ;  that  its  very  or- 
ganization provides  for  the  support  and  extension  of 
assumed  power,  and  that  this  power  may  be  oppressive- 
ly exercised  without  restriction.  I  have  shown  that 
Methodist  Episcopacy  contains  in  itself  the  very  ele- 
ments of  an  absolute  despotism,  and  therefore  must  ul- 
timately, unless  checked,  subvert  and  destroy  our  Ee- 
publican  institutions.  In  doing  this,  I  have  uttered  no 
harsh  epithets  ;  I  have  insinuated  nothing  against  the 
scripturalness  of  Methodist  doctrines,  or  the  piety  and 
godliness  of  Methodist  Church  members.  I  have  sim- 
ply spokeck  as  an  American  citizen,  and  I  call  on  every 
true  American  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
use  his  influence  to  effect  a  radical  reform  in  this  mat- 
ter. The  time  has  come  when  Americanism  and  Eo- 
manism arc  arrayed  in  hostile  attitudes.     Ecmembcr 


12  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

that  you  are  not  prepared  to  stand  by  Americanism 
while  you  are  the  subjects  of  a  hierarchy.  The  taunt 
will  come  with  irresistible  force  from  the  vassals  of 
the  pope  :  "Is  despotism  any  more  sinful  or  dangerous 
in  the  Komish  Church  than  in  the  Methodist?"  Oh! 
then,  be  Americans — ^be  freemen — throw  off  your  eccle- 
siastical chains,  and  then  you  will  be  prepared  consis- 
tently to  aid  your  fellow  countrymen  in  breaking  the 
yoke  of  ecclesiastical  despotism  with  which  Eome  has 
bound  her  ignorant  and  degraded  subjects  ! 

April  lOth,  1855. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  13 


LETTER  I. 

EPISCOPAL  METHODISM  NOT  ANTI-AMERICAN. 

"Wesley's  loyalty  ;  Methodists  love  their  doctrines ;  General  Con- 
ference cannot  change  doctrines  ;  Ministers  called  of  God,  and 
sent  out  by  His  people  ;  Two  orders  in  the  ministry  ;  Bishop 
Hamline's  resignation  ;  Apostolic  itinerancy  ;  Lay  delegation  5 
Peculiar  institution  ;  A  Bishop  has  no  vote  ;  Members  tried  by 
their  Societies  ;  Freedom  of  Opinion ;  Appointing  power  of 
Bishops  exercised  wisely;  Bishops  hold  no  Cliurch  property; 
Morbid  imagination. 

Eev.  Messrs.  Hexdeesox  and  Watt  : 

Btar  Sirs :  I  find  in  your  paper  of  tbe  19th  April,  an 
article  with  tLe  caption,  "Episcopal  Methodism — Anti- 
American,"  taken  from  the  "Western  Watchman,"  re- 
flectilig  severely  upon  the  Church  polity  of  Melbodism. 
I  should  not  deem  the  article  worthy  of  a  reply,  but  for 
its  serious  publication  in  so  respectable  a  journal  as  the 
Southwestern  Baptist. 

I  shall  ofler  no  comment  upon  the  presumption  or  ma- 
lignity, which  could  venture  to  misrepresent  so  grossly, 
the  Church  government  and  patriotism  of  the  largest 
body  of  Cliristians  in  the  United  States,  but  sliall  briefly 
state  the  theory  of  Methodism,  upon  the  points  in 
question. 

And  first, — It  is  true  that  John  Wesley,  the  Methodist, 
as  well  as  Rev.  Thomas  Chalmers,  the  Presbyterian,  and 
2 


14  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Eev.  Eobert  Hall,  the  Baptist,  were  good  subjects  of  the 
English  monarchy  ;  and  this  being  the  case,  they  were 
not  culpable  in  obeying  the  injunction — "  to  fear  God  and 
honor  the  King." 

Secondly, — The  charge  that  the  Methodist  ministry 
"  has  imposed  upon  the  people  articles  of  faith  without 
their  consent,"  is  absurd.  Is  it  possible  for  any  sane 
mind  to  believe  that  the  Methodist  Church  swells  her 
numbers  by  force  ?  !  !  ! 

Thirdly, — There  is  no  power  in  any  of  our  Church 
Courts  to  change  our  articles  of  faith.  On  page  29, 
Methodist  Discipline,  we  read,  "  the  General  Conference 
shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  articles  of  reli- 
gion, nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doc- 
trines." 

This  restrictive  rule  rests  upon  the  fact,  that  we  be- 
lieve our  articles  of  religion,  and  rules  of  doctrines  are 
taught  in  the  Bible  ;  and  we  do  not  presume  to  think 
We  can  improve  Divine  legislation. 

Fourthly, — ^We  believe  our  ministry  must  be  called  of 
God ;  the  evidences  of  this  call,  are  gifts,  grace,  and 
fruit ;  the  judge  of  this  evidence,  is  the  society  of  which 
the  candidate  for  the  ministry  is  a  member;  hence,  in 
the  Methodist  Church,  no  one  can  be  admitted  into  the 
ministry  without  the  recommendation  of  the  laity. 

Fifthly, — Our  Church  teaches,  and  our  standard  writ- 
ers contend,  that  there  are  but  two  orders  in  the  minis- 
try, viz.,  deacons  and  elders ;  and  that  Presbuteros  and 
Episcopos,  are  terms  used  interchangeably,  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  express  the  same  oflBce.  A  single  fact  in 
the  history  of  Methodism,  will  show  our  view  of  minis- 
terial grades  more  clearly  than  many  arguments. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  15 

Bishop  Hamline,  of  the  Northern  Methodist  Church,  a 
man  of  the  purest  character,  voluntarily  resigned  his 
Episcopacy,  and  is  now  acting-  simply  as  a  Methodist 
Presbyter.  Hence,  our  Episcopacy  is  a  mere  supcrin- 
tendency  or  presidency  ;  a  kind  of  permanent  niodera- 
torship.      i 

Sixthly, — "We  believe  that  the  distribution  of  our 
ministers  to  their  several  fields  of  labor,  upon  the  itiner- 
ant plan,  is  the  best  mode  of  imitating  the  Apostles, 
who  went  from  city  to  city — a  mode  admirably  adapted 
to  spread  scriptural  holiness  through  the  lands — and 
we  also  think  that  this  distribution  of  the  ministers,  and 
the  laws  regulating  this  itinerancy,  should  be  made 
with  a  conscientious  regard  for  the  well-being  of  the 
whole  Church,  but,  by  those  only  who  submit  to  the 
sacrifices  of  the  itinerancy,  and  upon  whom  these  lawa 
mainly  operate,  namely,  the  ministry  ;  nevertheless,  in 
all  other  enterprises,  financial  or  otherwise,  in  which  the 
laity  are  equally  concerned  with  the  ministry,  we  admit 
lay  delegation  ;  for  instance,  in  the  commission  to  lo- 
cate the  contemplated  Male  College  of  the  Alabama 
Conference,  to  meet  in  Summerficld  next  July,  we  have 
two  lay  delegates  for  one  ministerial  delegate.  "We 
have  also  in  our  Conferences,  johit  Boards  of  Finance, 
composed  equally  of  laymen  and  ministers. 

Seventhly,- — "\\^c  have  an  institution,  peculiar  to  Me- 
thodism, which  places  all  ranks  of  our  ministry  upon 
the  same  platform  ;  that  is,  all,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  have  to  pass  through  a  periodical  examination 
of  character.  At  our  General  Conferences,  a  Committee 
on  Episcopacy,  composed  of  the  very  men  over  whom 
the  bishops  preside  in  their  several  Annual  Conferences, 


16  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

review  the  entire  judicial  acts  and  personal  character  of 
all  our  bishops  ;  they  summon  the  bishops  before  their 
bar  at  pleasure,  and  freely  censure  or  approve,  as  seem- 
eth  g-ood  in  their  sight.  It  will  not  be  forg'otten  by  the 
Southern  people,  that  it  was  a  too  free  exercise  of  this 
power  over  the  bishops,  in  the  case  of  the  excellent 
bishop  J.  0.  Andrew,  on  account  of  his  connection  with 
slavery,  which  divided  our  Church  into  the  two  great 
branches,  Northern  and  Southern. 

Eighthly, — There  is  but  a  single  officer  in  our  Church 
who  is  denied  the  privilege  of  voting  in  any  and  all  of 
our  Church  Courts,  and  that  is  a  bishop,  who  has  not 
even  the  casting  vote  in  our  General  or  Annual  Confer- 
ences, or  in  any  other  Church  body. 

Ninthly, — No  member  in  our  Church  can  be  tried  or 
expelled  by  any  minister,  or  body  of  ministers,  but  only 
by  a  jury  of  his  peers — the  members  of  the  society  to 
which  he  belongs. 

Tenthly, — The  charge  that  "freedom  of  speech  upon 
Church  matters,  is  interdicted  upon  pain  of  exclusion," 
the  facts  in  the  case  will  show  to  be  utterly  groundless. 
It  is  true,  we  would  allow  no  man  to  promulge  Uni- 
tarianism  or  Universalism,  and  still  retain  his  member- 
ship with  us.  For  any  evangelical  denomination  to 
suffer  this,  would  be  to  abandon  Christianity  ;  but  upon 
the  minor  questions,  which  may  naturally  arise  among 
those  who  have  adopted  the  same  faith  and  practice, 
the  freest  expression  of  sentiment  is  indulged  without 
blame. 

The  free  discussion  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
upon  the  question  whether  or  not  the  Conference  could 
suspend  Bishop   Andrew,   without    the    least    charge 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  17 

against  his  moral  character,  which  was  really  done, 
and  the  proposition  introduced  by  Dr.  Smith,  of  Virginia, 
into  the  General  Conference  of  1850,  at  St.  Lonis,  to  re- 
model our  whole  General  Conference  system,  so  as  to 
have  two  houses  instead  of  one,  and  in  a  form  analagous 
to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  and  Senate  of  the  Unit- 
ed States ;  these  facts,  with  the  abundant  memorials 
sent  up  to  every  General  Conference,  are  ample  testi- 
mony that  the  widest  latitude  of  opinion  is  enjoyed  by 
our  entire  membership,  without  censure.  I  may  also 
add,  in  contradiction  to  a  reckless  statement  of  the 
writer  in  question,  that  the  editors  of  all  our  papers, 
magazines,  books,  tracts,  &c.,  are  elected  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  whether  from  the  ranks  of  the  itinerancy 
or  from  other  departments,  as  they  please,  and  without 
the  slightest  reference  to  the  wish  of  the  bishops.  Dr. 
Bond,  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal, 
in  New  York,  is  not  a  member  of  any  Annual  Confer- 
ence whatever. 

Eleventh, — Of  the  charge  that  the  power  of  the  bishop. 
with  the  aid  and  advice  of  the  presiding  elders,  to  make 
appointments,  "is  frequently  exercised  in  an  oppressive 
manner,"  I  remark,  if  the  writer  had  said,  that  those 
who  are  voluntarily  subject  to  this  power  are  not  unfre- 
qucntly  called  to  make  sacrifices,  in  going  to  the  moun- 
tains and  swamps,  and  frontier  wilds,  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  every  creature,  this  is  unquestionably  true  ;  but 
that  the  acts  of  these  honored  men  of  God,  are  ever  in- 
tentionally oppressive,  is  incredible.  It  is  reasonable  to 
assume  that  tliese  men  desire,  at  least,  to  promote  the 
interests  of  Methodism,  and  will  therefore  use  that 
power,  which  they  hold  under  strict  responsibility,  to 


18  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

accomplish  this  design,  and  not  to  defeat  it  by  glaring 
oppression.  Can  it  be  possible,  then,  that  such  men 
would  adopt  the  suicidal  policy  with  which  they  are 
charged  ?  No  !  it  were  impossible,  except  they  were 
destitute  not  only  of  moral  character  but  of  reason  also. 

Twelfth, — The  charge  that  "Methodists  degrade  them- 
selves by  submission  to  bishops,  and  that  no  Methodist 
congregation  has  dared  to  follow  the  example  of  some 
Eoman  Catholic  congregations,  in  opposing  the  demand 
of  our  bishops  to  control  all  the  Methodist  Church  pro- 
perty, moneys,  and  buildings;"  this  is  a  charge  so  utter- 
ly astounding  to  me,  that  I  almost  feel  wanting  in  self- 
respect  to  formally  deny  it.  But,  as  Solomon  says — 
"  answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly," — I  therefore  say 
that  our  bishops  have  not  a  solitary  cent's  worth  of  in- 
terest in  our  entire  Church  property.  Let  any  one  look 
at  the  deeds  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  Tuskegee,  and 
of  the  new  Methodist  College  erecting  in  our  town.  The 
proof  is  at  hand. 

Lastly, — It  is  charged  "  that  the  balance  of  power,  in 
a  political  contest,  may  rest  in  the  hands  of  seven  Me- 
thodist bishops  ;  they  may  suggest  to  the  presiding  el- 
ders, these  may  exercise  their  influence  over  the  preach- 
ers, these  again  over  the  class-leaders,  and  these  last 
over  the  class  members  ;"  thus  "the  suffrages  of  most  of 
the  members  may  be  controlled  by  the  bishops,  for  the 
election  of  a  certain  set  of  men  to  office,"  and  therefore, 
"Methodist  Episcopacy  must  ultimately,  unless  checked, 
destroy  our  Republican  institutions." 

This  accusation  is  in  full  proof  that  the  writer  of  the 
article  you  have  copied  from  the  Watchman,  is  a  man 
of  wonderfully  creative  imagination.    DeQuincy's  Opium 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  19 

Eater  never  saw  horrid  images  come  trooping  more  ra- 
pidly before  bis  fancy.  He  sbould  be  classed  with  the 
most  inventive  of  the  poets,  but  for  his  hypochondriac- 
ism — a  little  medical  treatment  would  be  of  service  to 
him.  May  he  live  forever  !  But  poetry  aside  ;  to  affirm 
that  I,  for  instance,  could  control  the  votes  of  such  men 
as  David  Clopton,  Judge  Dougherty,  J.  B.  Bilbro,  and 
Wm.  H.  Stafford  ;  and  that  these  can  in  turn  influence 
the  votes  of  such  class-members  as  J.  W.  Willis,  Robt. 
F.  Ligon,  James  A.  Smith,  J.  D.  Porter,  and  other  Me- 
thodists ;  to  affirm  this,  I  say,  is  about  as  generous,  as 
just,  and  as  true,  as  it  would  be  solemnly  to  assert  that 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Henderson  can  control  at  his  pleasure, 
the  votes  of  such  Baptists  as  Chief  Justice  Chilton, 
Chancellor  Mason,  Dr.  Battle,  and  others.  I  confess, 
Messrs.  Editors,  with  these  facts  before  me,  which  I 
stand  ever  ready  to  defend,  I  was  not  a  little  surprised 
that  the  article  thus  reviewed,  should  have  been  admit- 
ted into  the  columns  of  the  South  Western  Baptist.  As 
an  act  of  justice  to  your  fellow  citizens,  I  respect- 
fully ask  the  publication  of  this  article  in  your  paper. 
Respectfully  yours,  &c. 

E.  J.  HAMILL, 
Pastor  of  the  M.  E.  Church,   Tushgee,  Ala. 
May  3(1,  1855, 


We,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  request  the  publi- 
cation of  the  foregoing  in  the  South  Western  Baptist. 

Robert  L.  Mays, 
John  B.  Bilbro, 
DAvm  CLorxoN. 


20  A  DISCUSSION   ON 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  I. 


Courtesy  Extended  ;  Two  enquiries  ;  Great  names  do  not  change 
Error  into  Truth  ;  The  power  of  a  religious  theory  true  or  false, 
in  the  formation  of  character  ;  Our  PosiTrox  Defined  ;  Lexico- 
graphical definition  of  terms ;  Application  of  these  definitions 
to  the  sulijoct  in  debate  ;  Annual  and  General  Conferences  com- 
posed only  of  bishops  and  travelling  preachers  ;  Exclusion  of  lay- 
men from  these  bodies  ;  The  clergy  the  basis  of  representation ; 
Episcopacy  never  to  be  changed  ;  An  effort  to  change  it  rebuked  ; 
The  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  departments  of  govern- 
ment all  filled  exclusively  by  the  clergy  ;  Dr.  Bascom's  opinion  ; 
Methodist  Episcopacy  deprives  laymen  of  the  right  of  choosing 
their  own  pastors  ;  Anecdotes  of  Dr.  Rippon  and  Robert  Hall ;  The 
argumcntum  ad  homincm ;  Extent  of  oiu-  endorsement  of  the 
article  from  the  Western  Watchman. 

It  always  aifords  us  pleasure  to  open  our  columns  to 
any  person  or  community  to  vindicate  themselves  from 
intentional  or  unintentional  misrepresentation.  The  ar- 
ticle to  which  the  foregoing  communication  refers,  pur- 
ports to  have  b.een  written  by  an  American  citizen.  It 
is  assumed  that  he  has  most  grossly,  wantonly,  and 
malignantly  assailed  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Far  be  it  from  us  to  be  the  means  of  circulating  pre- 
sumptuous and  malignant  misrepresentations  "  of  the 
largest  body  of  Christians  in  the  United  States."  We 
can  assure  our  good  Brother  Hamill,  that,  welcome  as 
he  is  to  our  columns,  he  would  have  been  still  more  wel- 


.   METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  21 

come,  had  he  not  appended  the  endorsement  to  his  com- 
munication, of  the  three  very  respectable  names,  to  se- 
cure its  publication.  Highly  as  we  respect  these  gen- 
tlemen, all  of  whom  are  members  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  we  beg  leave  to  assure  them  that  their 
honored  pastor  is  always  welcome  to  our  columns,  with- 
out any  endorsement.  AVe  hope,  therefore,  that  he  will 
never  again  submit  our  mutual  respect  for  each  other 
to  such  an  unnecessary  implication. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  answer  in  detail  the  thirteen 
points  embraced  in  Brother  Hamill's  communication,  as 
it  would  introduce  a  range  of  discussion  too  extensive 
for  a  single  article.  And  moreover  we  are  content  that 
the  article  from  the  Watchman,  and  the  present  one, 
shall  stand  or  fall  on  their  own  merits.  We  shall,  there- 
fore, confine  our  remarks  to  two  very  simple  enquiries  ; 
these  are — 

First, — Is  the  Episcopal  feature  of  the  Methodist 
Church  a  legitimate  subject  of  newspaper  discussion  ? 

Secondly, — Is  Church  polity,  as  an  element  in  the  for- 
mation of  political  character,  of  sufficient  importance  to 
merit  the  attention  of  the  politician  and  statesman  ? 

And  let  it  be  distinctly  premised  here,  that  it  is  not 
the  piety,  or  even  the  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Church 
that  we  arc  now  to  discuss.  No  Protestant  recognizes 
the  seraphic  piety  and  the  evangelical  doctrines  of  a 
Fenelon  and  a  Bossuct  in  mitigation  of  the  tyranny  and 
crimes  of  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy.  Our  remarks 
will  be  confined  to  the  isolated  topic  of  Episcopacy. 
The  most  illustrious  names  of  this,  or  any  other  age, 
never  converted  one  error  into  a  truth.  And  he  who  ex- 
pects to  shield  an  error  bcln'nd  the  prestige  of  great  and 


22  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

good  names,  no  matter  if  they  are  as  numerous  as  the 
stars  of  heaven,  has  sadly  mistaken  the  age  in  which 
he  lives.  Whatever  of  charity  we  owe  to  men's  per- 
sons, it  is  certain  we  owe  none  to  their  errors.  He  who 
compromits  a  principle  out  of  complaisance  to  any  man 
or  set  of  men,  is  unworthy  to  he  trusted,  either  hy  God 
or  man.     But  to  our  first  enquiry  : 

Is  the  Episcopal  feature  of  the  Methodist  Church  a  le- 
gitimate subject  for  newspaper  discussion  ?  Now,  we 
aver  that  it  is  ;  as  much  so,  indeed,  as  the  ecclesiastical 
polity  of  any  other  denomination  on  earth.  It  is  a  trans- 
plant from  a  foreign  to  an  American  soil,  and  is  no  more 
exempted  from  the  ordeal  of  criticism  and  serious  inves- 
tigation, than  any  other  article  of  foreign  manufacture. 
That  its  type  is  tho  Episcopal  Church  of  England,  the 
established  religion  of  that  realm,  we  presume  its  most 
devoted  friends  will  not  question.  It  is  not  sacrilege 
for  an  American  citizen  to  question  the  right  of  the 
clergy  to  rule  a  constituency  numbering  nearly  a  mil- 
lion and  a  half.  But  we  will  not  suppose  that  our  Me- 
thodist brethren  will  claim  this  exemption;  and  we  need 
not  seriously  argue  it. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  second  question  proposed 
— Is  Church  polity,  as  an  element  in  the  formation  of 
political  character,  of  suflScient  importance  to  merit  the 
attention  of  the  politician  and  statesman  ?  We  think 
that  it  is.  Ever  since  the  days  of  Constantino,  ecclesi- 
astical power  has  been  invoked  by  secular  princes,  as 
an  essential  element  in  the  government  of  their  sub- 
jects. It  is  at  this  day  recognized  by  every  despot  of 
Europe,  not  only  as  an  organic  law  of  his  government, 
but  as  being  essential  to  enforce  his  authority.     It  can- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  23 

not  be  denied  that  religion,  whether  pure  and  undefiled, 
or  perverted  and  corrupted,  is  the  most  powerful  agency 
which  has  ever  been  brought  to  bear  upon  human  cha- 
racter. Its  unholy  and  corrupting  alliance  with  every 
government  in  Europe,  is  a  recognition  of  this  truth. 
Even  the  infidel,  Hobbes,  defended  religion  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  an  essential  auxiliary  in  the  hands  of  kings 
to  rule  their  subjects.  Like  the  devil  and  his  angels, 
who  lost  not  their  power  by  the  fall,  religion  loses  not 
its  power  by  being  corrupted  and  perverted  to  the  bas- 
est of  purposes.  The  most  virulent,  merciless,  and  vin- 
dictive persecutions  which  have  ever  darkened  the  pages 
of  Church  history,  have  emanated  from  a  corrupt  Chris- 
tianity. The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  Eeligion,  based 
as  it  is  upon  the  highest  authority  in  the  universe,  ap- 
peals to  and  develops  the  strongest  principles  and  pas- 
sions of  the  human  soul ;  and  these  become  correspond- 
ingly potent  for  good  or  for  evil,  according  to  the  power 
that  directs  them.  When  you  appeal  to  a  man's  religi- 
ous prejudices,  you  appeal  to  the  highest  principles  and 
motives  ttat  can  operate  upon  moral  agents.  This,  wo 
say,  is  both  objectively  and  subjectively  a  necessary 
truth. 

•  Now,  we  boldly  and  fearlessly  take  the  ground,  that 
THE  Episcopacy  of  Methodism  is  anti-Democratic,  and  anti- 
Kepublicax — that  in  so  far  as  its  operation  is  unrestric- 
ted BY  modifying  agencies,  IT  IS  ESSENTIALLY  AND  NECES- 
SARILY IN    DIRECT    ANTAGONISM   WITH  OUR   FREE    INSTITUTIONS. 

We  are  aware,  that  in  taking  this  ground,  we  are  sub- 
jecting ourselves  to  much  tmmerited  censure — the  cen- 
sure of  those  who  cannot,  or  more  properly  will  not,  dis- 
criminate between  persons  and  principles.     We   are 


24  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

aware  tliat  there  are  those  who  will  regard  us  as  attack- 
ing, not  a  solitary  principle  in  the  system  of  "the  largest 
denomination  of  Christians  in  the  United  States,"  but  as 
denouncing  the  entire  membership  of  that  denomination 
as  anti-Democratic.  But  this  has  no  terrors  to  us.  We 
shall  fearlessly  speak  what  we  believe  to  be  the  truth, 
be  the  consequences  what  they  may.  We  hope  to  do 
so,  however,  in  the  spirit- of  the  Gospel. 

As  words  are  the  signs  of  ideas,  the  most  obvious 
method  w^e  can  pursue  in  this  investigation  is,  in  the 
first  place,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  terms.  Pursu- 
ing this  course,  we  turn  to  our  great  national  standard, 
Webster's  Dictionary,  and  find  the  following  definitions 
of  the  terms  involved  in  this  discussion  : 

"Democeact,  nu,  government  by  the  people  ;  a  form  of 
government  in  which  the  supreme  power  is  lodged  in  the 
bands  of  the  people  collectively,  or  in  which  the  people 
exercise  the  powers  of  legislation." 

"Republic,  n.,  a  commonwealth  ;  a  state  in  which  the 
exercise  of  the  sovereign  power  is  lodged  in  the  hands 
of  representatives  elected  hy  the  people,"  &c. 

"Episcopacy,  n.,  literally,  oversight,  or  careful  inspec- 
tion ;  applied  particularly  to  the  government  of  the 
Church  by  bishops  or  prelates."  a 

"  Episcopal,  a.,  belonging  to,  or  vested  in,  bishops  or 
prelates ;  2,  governed  by  bishops." 

Now,  when  we  assert  that  the  Episcopal  feature  of 
the  Methodist  organization  is  anti-Democratic  and  anti- 
Republican,  wo  are  but  asserting  what  every  school- 
boy may  know  in  five  minatcs  by  turning  to  his  dic- 
tionary— that  a  form  of  government  in  which  the  su- 
preme power  is  lodged  in  the  hands  of  bishops  or  pre- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  25 

lates,  the  clergy,  is  in  manifest  antagonism  with  that 
form  of  government  in  which  such  power  is  lodged  in 
the  hands  of  the  people,  or  of  representatives  elected  by 
the  people.  It  were  absurd  to  say  that  two  such  prin- 
ciples ever  can  harmonize.  If  the  bill  of  rights  set 
forth  in  the  preamble  of  all  our  civil  constitutions,  State 
and  National,  asserts  a  truth,  that  "  allpoicer  is  inherent 
in  the  people"  then  we  maintain  that  a  government  in 
which  the  people  have  no  voice,  practically  sets  that 
truth  at  defiance. 

Who  compose  the  annual  and  quadrennial  Conferences 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ?  Let  the  Discipline 
answer  : — -"  Quest.  3.  Who  shall  attend  the  yearly  Con- 
ferences ?  Ans.  All  fravelling  preachers  in  full  connec- 
tion, and  those  who  are  to  be  received  into  full  connec- 
tion."— p.  23.  Again  :  "  Qvest.  Who  shall  compose  the 
General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and 
powers  belonging  to  it  ?  Ans.  1.  The  General  Confer- 
ence shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every  twenty- 
one  members  of  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appoint- 
ed either  by  seniority  or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such 
Annual  Conference  :  yet  so  that  such  representatives 
shall  have  travelled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years 
from  the  time  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual 
Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference." — p.  20.  And  on  page  21,  on  de- 
fining the  limitations  and  restrictions  of  the  powers  of 
a  General  Conference,  the  following  items  occur  : — "3. 
They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government,  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy,  or  destroy  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency.  4.  They 
shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  tho 
3 


26  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Uuited  Societies.  6.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privi- 
leges of  our  ministers  or  preachers,  of  trial  by  a  com- 
mittee, and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the 
pri'vileges  of  our  members,  of  trial  before  the  society,  or 
by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal." 

Now,  observe,  first,  that  the  Annual  Conference  is 
composed,  ex  officio,  of  the  clergy  under  appointment  of 
the  bishops  in  that  Conference.  Even  local  preachers, 
no  matter  what  their  piety  and  talents  may  be,  have  no 
voice  in  its  councils.  Observe,  secondly,  that  the  basis 
of  representation  in  a  General  Conference,  is^— not  the 
membership  of  the  Church,  but  the  aforesaid  clergy  in 
each  State.  In  neither  an  Annual  or  General  Confer- 
ence is  the  voice  of  a  layman  or  his  representative  ever 
heard,  unless  it  be  by  petition — a  right  which  the  most 
perfect  despot  will  allow  his  subjects.  Observe,  third- 
ly, that  this  distinct  feature  of  the  Methodist  Church  is 
never  to  be  changed.  The  General  Conference  must  not 
"do  away  Episcopacy."  It  is  recognised  as  an  essential 
organic  law  of  the  system,  to  do  away  with  which,  would 
dissolve  the  whole  fabric.  That  is  to  say,  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  rights  of  the  people,  the  private  members,  to 
a  representation  in  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences, 
would  be  the  death-knell  of  Methodist  Episcopacy  I  The 
fathers  of  this  Church  have  taken  the  special  pains  to 
throw  around  this  special  feature  of  Methodism,  the 
sanctity  and  power  of  an  irrevocable  decree  !  !  Any 
effort  to  change  it  meets  with  a  stern  rebuke — such  as 
was  administered  by  the  General  Conference,  in  1824, 
and  in  1828,  at  which  a  large  and  respectable  body  of 
ministers  were  expelled  from  the  body,  who  subsequent- 
ly formed  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  of  the  United 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  21 

States.     Call  you  this  Republican  Democracy  ?     A  nu- 
merous and  respectable  body  of  ministers  and  laymen, 
from  different  parts  of  the  United  States,  petition  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
so  to  modify  its  basis  of  representation  as  to  permit  the 
voice  of  its  laymen  to  be  heard  in  its  counsels,  is  re- 
buked and  denounced  as  schismatical  and  heretical,  and 
a  solemn  act  of  exclusion  is  pronounced  against  them  ! 
And  yet  there  is  nothing  in  Methodist  Episcopacy  but 
what  harmonizes  most  beautifully  with  American  De- 
mocracy !     And  when  we  quote  the  very  language  of 
the  illustrious  founder  of  Methodism,   John  Wesley, — 
"  We  are  not  Republicans,  and  never  intend  to  be," — 
and  when  we  attempt  to  point  Qut  the  features  of  Me- 
thodist polity  which  antagonize  with  the  genius  of  our 
free  institutions,  why,  we  have  a  "  wonderfully  creative 
imagination.     DeQuincy's  Opium  Eater  never  saw  such 
horrid  images  as  come  trooping  .  .  .  before  his  fancy. 
A  little   medical  treatment  is"  the  proper  remedy  for 
such  a  distemper  1     All  "poetry"  Brother  Hamill.     It' 
would  tax   "the  most  inventive  of  the  poets" — nay, 
much  more  inventive  than  have  produced  an  "  Iliad  "  or 
a  "  Paradise  Lost,"  we  opine,  to  discover  the  Democracy 
of  Methodist  Episcopacy.     What  an  interesting  task 
that  would  be  for  an  American  citizen  to  sit  down  to  the 
serious  matter  of  showing  that  a  government  by  bishops 
and  clergy  was  perfectly  consistent,  nay,  synonymous 
with  government  by  the  people — that  a  representation 
based  upon  the  clergy  was  equivalent  to  a  representation 
based  upon  the  people,  the  private  membership  of  the 
Church — that  a  legislative  body  in  which  the  voice  of  the 
people  is  never  heard,  or  if  heard,  is  only  heeded  as  a  mat- 


28  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

t'ei-  of  grace,  is  equivalent  to  a-legislative  body  in  whicli 
the  people  collectively  exercise  .the  controlling  power  1 

Again  :  government  is  divided  into  ihree  departments 
— Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial.  But  in  neither 
of  these  departments  are  the  private  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  represented.  They  have  no 
power  either  to  make,  expound  or  execute  the  law.  Even 
if  they  pronounce  the  solemn  act  of  exclusion  against  a 
member,  it  is  subject  to  appeal,  and  may  be  reversed 
by  the  bishop  or  bishops  :  and  "the  word  of  a"  bishop 
"  is  the  end  of  all  strife."  And  thaf  we  may  not  be 
considered  uncharitable  in  this  remark,  we  make  the 
following  extract  from  the  late  Bishop  Bascom's  "  De- 
claration^of  th'e  Righte  of  Man."  Let  every  Methodist 
read  and  ponder  it  well.  If  he  will  not  hear  the  word 
of  a  bishop,  (written  to-be-sure  before  he  became  a  bishop, 
yet  not  the  less  authoritative  with  American  readers  on 
that  account,)  he  surely  will  not  be  persuaded  by  an 
humble  Baptist  editor.     But  to  the  extract  : 

"  Art.  6.  A  government  uniting  legislative,  judi- 
cial, and  executive  powers  in  the  hands  of  the  same 
men,  is  an  absurdity  in  theory,  and,  in  practice,  tyranny. 
The  executive  power,  in  every  government,  should  bo 
subordinate  to  the  legislative,  and  the  judicial  independ- 
ent of  both.  Whenever,  therefore,  it  happens  that  these 
three  departments  of  government  are  in  the  hands  of  the 
same  body  of  men,  and  these  men  not  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people — first  making  the  laws,  then  execut- 
ing them,  and  finally  the  sole  judges  of  their  own  acts, 
there  is  no  liberty  ;  the  people  are  virtually  enslaved, 
and  liable  to  be  ruined  at  any  time.  In  a  government, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  where  the  same  men  are  legisla- 
tors, administrators,  and  judges,  in  relation  to  all  the 
laws,  and  every  possible  application  of  them,  the  people^ 


.     METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  29 

•whether  well  or  ill  treated,  are  in  fact  slaves  ;  for  the 
only  remedy  against  such  a  despotism  is  revolt.  _No 
constitution  can  be  presumed  a  good  one,  embodying 
the  principles  of  correct  government,  which  does  not 
suflSciently  guard  against  the  chances  and  possibility  of 
mal-administration.  All  absolute  governments  owe 
their  character  to  the  manner  in  which  they  are  admin- 
istered; whereas,  in  a  representative  government,  with 
proper  checks  and  balances,  it  is  the  interest,  even  of 
the  vicious,  to  promote  the  general  welfare,  by  conform- 
ing to  the  laws.  The  greater  the  equality  established 
among  men  by  governments,  the  more  virtue  and  happi- 
ness will  prevail  ;  for  where  the  voluntary  consent  of  the  go- 
verned is  tlie,  basis  of  government,  interest  and  duty  combine  to 
promote  the  common  weal." 

Finally.  Methodist  Episcopacy  deprives  the  mem- 
bership ofiihat  Church  of  the,  right  of  choosing  their 
own  pastor^— a  right  as  dear  to  the  Lord's  "freed  men" 
as  any  with  which  they  are  invested  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  Churches  sometimes  petition  the  bishop  for 
some  particular  person  of  their  choice,  but  how  often 
are  their  wnshes  disregarded  !  We  recollect  some  year 
or  two  since,  of  reading  in  one  of  the  regular  journals 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  some  serious  articles  , 
against  the  policy  of  yielding  to  this,  the  most  humble 
method  of  expressing  a  wish,  in  which  the  ground  was 
taken,  if  we  remember  correctly,  that  if  the  thing  was 
not  stopped,  it  would  virtually  "do  away  with  Episco- 
pacy." And  yet  wc  are  called  upon  to  believe— nay, 
we  are  considered  very  uncharitable  and  bigoted  if  we 
will  not  believe — that  a  church  organization  in  which 
the  right  of  the  laity  to  choose  their  own  pastors — those 
who  are'to  break  to  tliem  the  bread  of  eternal  life,  and 
who  arc  to  be  supported  by  their  money,  and  assisted 


30  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

by  their  prayers  and  sympathies— is  absolutely  denied, 
is,  nevertheless,  quite  .consistent  with  American  Demo- 
cracy ! 

But,  says  Brother  Hamill,  "John  Wesley,,  the  Method- 
ist, Thomas  Chalmers,  the  Presbyterian,  and  Eobert 
Hall,  the  Baptist,  werQ  good  subjects  of  the  English 
Monarchy."  True,  they  were  ;  they  were  mindful  of  the 
Divine  injunction,  "fear  God  and  honor  the  King."  But 
is  not  Brother  Hamill  aware  that  the  form  of  Church  Go- 
vernment recognized  by  Hall,  was  as  pure  a  Democracy 
as  that  recognized  by  Baptist  Churches,  even  in  the 
United  States — and  that  it  has  been  mainly  through  the 
agencies  of  such  men  as  Robert  Hall,  and  the  Indepen- 
dents of  England,  that  the  act  of  non-conformity  was 
extorted  from  the  British  crown,  conferring  the  right 
to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  one's  own 
conscience  1  And  let  it  never  be  forgotten  that,  in  our 
struggle  for  independence,  the  Baptists  and  Independents 
of  Great  Britain  were  universally  on  our  side.  Dr.  Rip- 
pon,  pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church  in  London,  writing  to 
Dr.  Baldwin,  pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church  in  Boston,  dur- 
ing the  Revolutionary  war,  says  to  him^-"When  the 
king's  armies  prevail,  there  is  the  cry  of  mourning,  la- 
mentation and  woe  amongst  us  ;  but  when  the  Ameri- 
can army  prevails,  there  is  the  shout  of  kings  in  our 
camps."  Robert  Hall,  the  father  of  the  distinguished 
orator,  and  one  of  the  most  eloquent  Baptist  ministers 
of  his  age,  was  an  open  and  avowed  friend  of  the  Colo- 
nies. The  following  anecdote  of  him  and  Dr.  Ryland,  is 
worth  relating  : 

"One  evening  our  conversation  turned  on  the  subject 
of  the  war  with  America,  previously  to  the  acknowledg- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  31 

ment  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Hall  said  '  Sir,  that  war  was  very  unpopular,  and  -con- 
sidered to  be  very  unrighteous  by  men  of  true  liberty 
principles.  My  father,  sir,  warmly  advocated  the  Ame- 
rican cause.  When  I  was  a  little  boy,  he  took  mo  to 
the  school  of  Mr.  Ryland,  at  Northampton,  the  father  of 
Dr.  Ryland,  of  Bristol;  this  Mr.  Ryland  was  very  eccen- 
tric, alid  a  violent  partizan  of  the  Americans;  it  was  in 
the  hottest  period  of  the  war,  sir,  and  many  persons 
were  very  indignant  at  the  conduct  of  the  English  Go- 
vernment. That  war,  sir,  was  considered  as  a  crusade 
against  the  liberty  of  the  subject  and  the  rights  of  man. 
The  first  night  we  arrived  at  Northampton,  from  Arns- 
by,  sir,  the  two  old  gentlemen  (my  father  and  Mr.  Ry- 
land) talked  over  American  politics  until  thej-  both  be- 
came heated,  on  the  same  side  of  the  question.  At 
length  Mr.  Ryland  burst  forth  in  this  manner  :  '  Brother 
ffall,  I  will  tell  you  what  I  would  do  if  I  were  General 
Washington.'  'Well,'  said  my  father,  'what  would  you 
do  ?'  '  Why,  Brotlicr  Hall,  if  I  were  General  Washing- 
ton, I  would  summon  all  the  American  officers  ;  they 
should  form  a  circle  around  me,  and  I  would  address 
them,  and  we  would  offer  a  libation  in  our  own  blood, 
and  I  would  order  one  of  them  to  bring  a  lancet  and  a 
punch-powl  ;  and  he  should  bleed  us  all,  one  by  one,  in- 
to this  punch-bowl ;  and  I  would  be  the  iirst  to  bare  my 
arm;  and  when  the  punch-bowl  was  full,  and  we  had  all 
beeu  bled,  I  would  call  upon  every  man  to  consecrate 
himself  to  the  work,  by  dipping  his  sword  into  the  bowl, 
and'  entering  into  a  solemn  covenant  engagement  by 
oath,  one  to  another,  and  would  sioear  hy  Him  that  sits 
upon  the  throne  and  livelh  forever  and  crer*,  that  we  would 
never  slieath  our  swords  Avhilc  there  was  an  English 
soldier  in  arms  remaining  in  America  ;  and  this  is  what 
I  would  do.  Brother  Hall.' " — Greeners  Reminiscences  of 
Robert  Hall. 

But  we  must  conclude.    Brother  Hamill  seems  to  con- 
sider that  it  is  quite   Democratic  that  the  trustecsliip 


/ 


32  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

and  location  of  Colleges  should  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a  majority  of  laymen.  Pardon  us,  Brother  Hamill, 
if  we  say  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject.  We 
are  discussing  the  power  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  over 
Churches,  not  Colleges.  The  privilege  of  locating  a 
College,  or  of  being  a  trustee  of  it  when  located,  has 
about  as  much  to  do  with  the  Episcopal  government  of 
your  Church,  as  the  appointment  of  a  servant  to  supply 
your  Annual  Conference  with  water.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was  no  more  organized  to  erect  Col- 
leges than  any  other  Church.  The  subject  of  education 
in  that,  as  in  all  other  denominations,  is  an  appendage, 
and  enters  not  into  its  organic  features. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood  or  misrepresented.  The 
question  is  not  whether  Brother  Hamill  or  ourself  could 
control  the  votes  of  such  men  as  he  names  in  his  com- 
munication. This  is  an  argumentum  ad  hominem,  a  mode 
of  argument  usually  resorted  to  for  the  want  of  a  better  ; 
but  the  question  is,  whether  a  civil  government,  organ- 
ized upon  the  principles  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  could 
be  called  with  propriety  a  Democratic  Kepublican  Go- 
vernment ?  We  say  it  could  not.  How  far  we  have 
proved  this,  is  left  to  the  candid  reader. 

As  to  the  article  to  which  Brother  Hamill  replies,  as 
copied  from  the  Watchman  into  our  paper,  it  contain- 
ed matter  proper  to  be  published.  It  does  not  follow 
that  editors  are  considered  as  endorsing  all  the  senti- 
ments contained  in  every  article  copied  into  their  paper. 
Nor  is  it  incumbent  on  them  to  sift  and  criticise  each 
argument  which  such  selections  may  contain.  So  far  as 
the  article  in  question  favors  an  assault  upon  Methodist 
Episcopacy  at  the  ballot  bos,  we  repudiate  it,  for  in 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  33 

voting-,  we  never  enquire  as  to  what  Church  a  man  be- 
longs ;  but  whether  he  is  honest  and  capable,  and 
whether  his  views  upon  important  political  questions 
correspond  with  our  own.  With  respect,  however,  to 
the  position,  which  is  the  leading  idea  contained  in  the 
article,  and  which  we  have  above  discussed,  we  believe 
it  to  be  true,  and  can  maintain  it. 


34  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


LETTER  II. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  NOT  ANTI-REPUB- 
LICAN. 

Christian  discussion  profitable  ;  Foreign  topics  ;  Tlie  Bible  and  its 
Episcopacy  a  foreign  importation  ;  Mormon  the  only  system  of 
religion  of  American  origin  ;  Mistakes  corrected  ;  The  advantages 
of  Itinerancy  ;  The  Democratic  principle  acknowledged,  that  none 
should  make  laws  but  those  who  are  subject  to  them  ;  Itinerants 
made  such  by  the  people  ;  Itinerants  constitute  their  officers  like 
legislatures  ;  Power  of  the  General  Conference  over  bishops  ; 
Four  points  in  which  Church  government  should  be  unlike  civil 
government ;  Methodist  Church  government  bears  a  proper  ana- 
logy to  our  Federal  Government  ;  Fancy  sketch  of  the  youth, 
Bascom ;  Anecdote  ;  Paul's  definition  of  Episcopos ;  The  Baptist 
discipline  ;  Government  it  describes  unlike  our  civil  govei'ument ; 
A  sad  picture  ;  An  wn-Republican  feature ;  Robert  Hall's  view  of 
close  communion. 

"  He  that  is  first  in  his  own  canse  seeineth  just,  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  search- 
eth  him."— Proverbs. 

Dear  Brother  Henderson  : 

I  thauk  you  for  youi*  kind  regard,  and  hope  the  fra- 
ternal feelings  cherished  for  each  other,  for  many  years, 
will  not  suffer  abatement  in  our  discussion.  The  en- 
dorsement of  my  article  by  my  brethren,  was  proper, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  35 

because  the  writer  reviewed  by  me  bad  attempted  to 
degrade  tbem  politically.  In  the  present  case  it  is  un- 
necessary, and  unendorsed.  I  cordially  accept  the  invit- 
ation you  hav«'  freely  accorded  me,  to  a  place  in  your 
columns.  Discussion,  conducted  upon  righteous  prin- 
ciples, is  always  profitable.  Paul  disputed  daily  in  the 
school  of  onej'yrannus,  and  this  continued  by  the  space 
of  two  years  ;  so  that  all  they  which  dwelt  in  Asia  heard 
the  word  of  the  Lord— a  truly  blessed  result.  And  so 
it  has  ever  been,  wherever  truth  has  greatly  extended 
her  conquests  over  the  human  mind,  she  has  found  in 
controversy  a  powerful  auxiliary.  Hence  we  are  of  the 
same  mind  upon  your  first  proposition,  that  the  Episco- 
pacy of  Methodism  is  a  legitimate  subject^or  newspa- 
per discussion — especially  with  a  magnanimous  oppon- 
ent. The  entire  system  of  Methodist  doctrines  and 
principles,  invites  investigation;  it  shuns  no  scrutiny; 
discussion,  whether  oral  or  written,  but  unfolds  its  wis- 
dom and  its  beauty.  As  you  do  not  controvert  the  thir- 
teen points  in  my  communication,  except  as  they  bear 
upon  the  new  issue  you  make,  and  as  you  repudiate  the 
slanderous  article,  from  the  "Watchman,"  in  all  points 
save  that  contained  in  your  proposition,  I  have  done 
with  '^the  anonymous  slanderer,  and  cheerfully  accept 
debate  on  your  terms,  and  contend  that  "  The  Episco- 
pacy of  Methodism  is  not  anti-Republican."  To  give 
your  entire  communication  a  respectful  notice,  I  will, 
first,  dispose  of  some  thoughts  in  your  piece  not  impor- 
tant to  the  controversy,  and  correct  some  mistakes  into 
which  you  have  inadvertently  fallen. 

You  have  given  us  dissertations  upon  the  facts — that 
great  naTaes  do  not  excuse  or  sanctify  errors — that  ec- 


36  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

clesiastical  power  has  been  invoked  by  princes  since 
the  days  of  Constantine,  and  that  religious  opinions, 
whether  true  or  false,  are  wonderfully  potent  in  their 
influence  upon  the  human  soul.  Thesa  are  certainly 
truths  ;  and  I  will  not  presume  to  dictate  to  you  what 
amount  of  elegant  dissertation  upon  foreign  topics  you 
may  interweave  into  this  debate.  My  di^ty  is,  to  look 
only  to  what  bears  upon  the  point  in  question.  If  our 
Episcopal  feature  were,  as  you  say,  a  transplant  from  a 
foreign  soil,  it  were  no  less  worthy  of  acceptance  on  that 
account ;  for  our  Bible  is  a  foreign  importation.  Moses, 
Isaiah,  Daniel,  Paul,  and  John,  were  Hebrews.  I  know  of 
no  system  of  religion  of  American  origin  but  Mormonism, 
and  I  am  sure  you  have  no  love  for  that,  though  it  does 
baptize  by  immersion,  and  denounce  infant  baptism. 

Suffer  me  now  to  correct  the  mistakes  adverted 
to.  You  say  "the  Episcopal  Church  of  England  is 
the  type  of  the  Episcopal  feature  of  the  Methodist 
Church."  This  is  a  very  great  error  for  a  man  of  your 
erudition.  Your  valuable  time  has  been  spent  in  more 
important  matters,  perhaps,  than  the  study  of  Church 
government,  or.  you  would  not  have  made  so  great  a 
mistake.  The  standard  writers  of  both  Churches  ■will 
tell  you  there  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  two 
systems.  We  hold  that  the  Bible  makes  but  two  orders 
in  the  ministry — they  contend,  that  without  a  third  order 
a  Church  cannot  exist.  "  Powell,  on  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion," a  work  which  our  young  ministers  are  required 
to  study,  will  give  you  the  particulars.  The  next  mis- 
take I  will  point  out,  is  of  great  importance  to  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  You  say,  "if  private  members  pronounce 
the  solemn  act  of  exclusion  against  a  member,  it  is  sub- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  B1 

ject  to  appeal,  and  may  bo  reversed  by  a  bishop,  and 
the  word  of  a  bishop  is  the  end  of  all  strife."-  Now,  this 
mistake  of  yours  upon  this  very  i?>iportant  point,  is  pure 
fiction,  wholly  groundless.  Our  whole  body  of  bishops 
cannot  even  so  much  as  vote,  whether  or  not  the  least 
of  our  members. shall  be  excluded  from  or  reinstated  in 
our  membership.  With  the  slight  acquaintance  you  have 
with  our  system,  you  might  easily  have  believed  us  anti- 
Eepublican,  or  anything  else.  A  better  knowledge  of 
our  excellent  government  will  increase  your  esteem  for 
it.  Your  onslaught  upon  our  Episcopacy,  in  ignorance 
of  the  first  principles  of  our  system,  demands  that  I 
should  call  your  attention  to  the  proverb — "  He  that 
answereth  a  matter  before  he  heareth  it,  it  is  fully  and 
shame  unto  him." 

You  think  our  "  Episcopacy  deprives  our  members  of 
the  right  of  choosing  their  pastors — a  right  dear  to  the 
Lord's  freemen."  Are  you  aware  that  the  Wesleyan 
Methodist  Church  in  England — our  much  loved  mother 
Church — has  no  bishops,  and  yet  appoint  their  ministers 
upon  the  itinerant  plan,  just  as  we  do  ?  And  moreover, 
our  Protestant  Methodist  brethren  in  our  land,  have  no 
bishops,  and  have  lay  delegations  to  the  fullest  possible 
extent,  and  they  also  appoint  ministers  to  their  charges 
upon  the  itinerant  plan.  Your  argument  is  a  non 
causa  pro  causa\  you  have  ascribed  that  to  Episcopacy, 
which  is  essential  to,  and  inseparable  from  itinerancy, 
whether  with  or  without  lay  delegation  and  Episcopacy 
— that  is,  the  principle  of  sending  several  ministers  in 
succession  to  the  same  charge.  This  itinerancy  you 
cannot  think  anti-Republican,  for  all  branches  of  Me- 
thodism believe  it  to  be  the  best  mode  of  spreading  the 
4 

443  3.05 


38 


A  DISCUSSION  ON 


Gospel.    It  is  ia  imitation  of  Apostolic  itinerancy.   Paul 
preached  from  Jerusalem  round  about  to  Illyricum — it 
secures  an  efficient  ministry,  not  only  for  the  rich  cities, 
but  for  the  sickly  savannas,  mountain  wilds,  and  bleak 
places  of  the  earth— it  is  after  the  analogy  of  nature,  in 
propelling  the  rich  blood,  laden  with  nourishment,  to 
the  extremities  of  the  human  system — it  satisfies  the 
thirst  for  novelty,  inlaid  in  the  very  structure  of  the 
mind,  as  a  basis  for  education — and  as  God  has  given 
to  one   "  the  word  of  wisdom,  to  another  the  word  of 
knowledge,  to  another  faith,"  &c.,  as  he  has  sent  out 
men  of  divers  talents  and  excellencies,  to  suit  the  di- 
verse peculiarities  of  men  ;  the   appointment  of  these 
men  successively  to  the  same  Churches,  will  make  their 
varied  gifts  fully  available  to  the  edification  of  the  en- 
tire membership  of  the  Churches.     Your  own  modesty 
will  admit,  I  think,  that  your  permanent  ministry  in  a 
single  Church,  would  be  less  profitable  to  that  people 
than  a  proper  succession  of  labors  of  such  men  as  your- 
self and  Brothers  Tichenor,  and  DcYotie.     And  I  know 
that  the  high  appreciation  of  your  character  abroad, 
\;reates  a  strong  probability,  that  if  you  were  sent  upon 
an  itinerant  plan,  say  to  Montgomery  and  Marion,  your 
labors  would  be  more  richly  blessed.     Thus,  both  min- 
isters and  members  would  be  blessed  by  the  operation 
of  this  Scriptural  plan,  and  many  secret  griefs  and  mor- 
tifications, such  as  are  described  in  "  the  Shady  Side," 
would  be  escaped. 

In  this  excellent  plan  of  itinerancy,  lies  the  philoso- 
phy of  our  Avhole  system — it  is  the  key-stone  of  the  arch 
— take  it  away  and  many  parts  of  our  system  are  super- 
fluous.   We  would  then  have  no  need  for  our  annual 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  39 

examinations  of  character,  and  for  the  reception:  of  min- 
isters into  the  travelling  connection,  and  much  else  ap- 
pertaining to  the  business  of  an  Annual  Conference 
would  cease  to  be.  And  strange  as  it  may  seem  to  you, 
in  all  the  business  left  to  an  Annual  Conference,  were 
the  itinerancy  abolished — such  as  attention  to  Mission- 
ary and  Sunday  Schools,  and  Tract  Societies  and  Col- 
leges, in  all  tliese,  we  have  lay  management,  and  lay 
delegation.  So  that  if  lay  delegation  extends  not  to 
the  control  of  this  distribution  of  ministers,  and  to  the 
enactment  of  laws  regulating  this  distribution,  it  is  be- 
cause we  believe  too  strongly  in  the  Republican  prin- 
ciple, that  laws  should  be  made  by  those  only  who  are 
subject  to  them,  and  not  by  those  on  whom  they  cannot 
operate.  Moreover,  in  the  very  constituting  of  this  iti- 
nerancy, the  representative  principle  is  fully  admitted  ; 
for  all  itinerants  are  made  such  by  two  distinct  acts  of 
the  private  membership.  First,  by  granting  a  license 
to  preach,  and  secondly,  by  recommending  the  preacher 
for  admittance  into  the  travelling  connection,  without 
which,  there  is  no  admission.  This  procedure  is  anala- 
gous  to  a  bill,  originating  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  sent  to  the  Scuatc  before  it  becomes  law.  If 
these  itinerants,  thus  constituted,  then  go  on  and  ap- 
point other  officers  for  life,  it  is  analagous  to  the  ap- 
pointments for  life  by  the  President  ;  Heads  of  depart- 
ments, and  Senate,  of  Judges,  and  naval  and  military 
officers. 

Anotlicr  item  of  our  economy  which  you  do  not  under- 
stand is  this;  you  know  our  General  Conference  cannot  do 
away  Episcopacy,  but  you  do  not  know  they  can  almost 
completely  divest  the  bishops  of  the  appointing  power 


40  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

■whenever  they  see  proper.  It  was  once  voted  so  to 
change  it,  when  bishop  Soule  was  elected,  but  he  refus- 
ed to  accept  the  office,  unless  they  reconsidered  the  mat- 
ter and  left  it  as  it  was  ;  hence,  he  was  not  made  bishop 
until  four  years  afterwards.  These  explanations  make 
the  task  of  showing  that  we  are  not  anti-Republican, 
eas}'.  Now,  there  are  four  points  in  which  every  form 
of  civil  government  should  be  unlike  Church  govern- 
ment; but  I  shall  contrast  the  latter  with  Republican- 
ism only.  In  a  Republic,  the  people  frame  their  funda 
mental  laws;  but  in  a  Church  government,  they  are 
framed  by  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  for  her;  second- 
ly, in  a  Republic,  the  people  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
choose  their  officers ;  but  in  a  Church  government,  God 
must  first,  by  His  Spirit,  call  her  officers — the  ministry 
— and  it  is  allowed  to  the  Church,  in  order  to  guard 
against  impostui*e,  only  to  acknowledge  that  call ;  and 
then  it  cannot  revoke  their  powers  while  their  lives  aje 
blameless  ;  thirdly,  oven  aliens  dwelling  in  a  Republic, 
must  be  subject  to  its  laws  ;  but  aliens  to  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  may  or  may  not  place  themselves  un- 
der any  Church  government  ;  and,  in  the  last  place,  a 
Republic  inflicts  civil  pains  and  penalties,  such  as  death, 
upon  offenders  ;  but  Church  governments  inflict  no  civil 
pains  or  penalties  whatever,  A  Church,  scripturally 
organized,  must,  therefore,  blend  in  its  government  the 
theocratic  element,  for  Christ  is  King;  the  ecclesiastic, 
for  he  hath  made  such  "  overseers  to  feed  the  Church  of 
God;"  and  the  Democratic  element,  for  by  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them  —  who  are  Christ's  appointees. 
Hence,  the  analogy  between  the  government  of  a 
Church,  and  that  of  a  Republic,  must  necessarily  be 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  44 

very  slender.  Nevertheless,  within  the  limitations  spe- 
cified, the  Methodist  Church  government  approximates 
as  nearly  the  model  of  our  federal  government  as  any 
in  the  land. 

If  you  say  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  anti-RepuLlican, 
because  it  possesses  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial 
powers,  we  answer,  it  is  another  of  j^our  grand  mistakes 
— it  possesses  no  such  powers.      Our  bishops  have  no 
legislative  powers  whatever,  or  anywhere.     I  have  al- 
ready informed  you,  they  have  not  so  much  as  a  vote  in 
any  of  our  Church  councils — they  cannot  participate  in 
the  trial  of  a  member;  hence,  they  have  no  executive  au- 
thority in  any  one  of  our  thousands  of  Churches — they 
have  neither  legislative  nor  executive  authority  in  our 
General  Conferences — they  cannot  vote  in  the  trial  of 
any  of  our  ministers  ;  in  this  respect,  they  have  no  exe- 
cutive authority  in  our  Annual  Conferences,  and  are 
cut  off  from  participation  in  its  legislation  also  ;  and 
the  small  portion  of  judicial   and  executive  authority 
they  are   allowed  there,  is   held  under  strict  respon- 
sibility  to  the    Eldership   over    which    they  exercise 
this  authority;  and  even  their  appointing  power  may  be 
changed  by  a  single  vote  of  the  General  Conference. 
Hence,  the  prettily  written  fancy  sketch  of  the  youthful 
Bascom,  is  pointless  in  its  assault  upon  our  Episcopacy  ; 
it  was  dissipated  by  the  clearer  wisdom  of  his  man- 
hood ;  it  was  applicable,  even  to  civil  government,  only 
cum  grano  salis. 

The  indulgence  granted  to  the  childish  dream  of  a 
gifted  youth,  in  his  retention  among  us,  is  a  good  ilhis- 
tration  of  our  freedom  of  speech  ;  and  a  sufficient  reply 
to  the  charge,  that  ministers  Avcrc  excluded  from  our 


4-3  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Church,  only  for  holding  the  very  same  sentiments.  And 
now,  dear  sir,  as  I  have  corrected  your  mistaken  views 
of  our  system,  I  ask  you,  solemnly,  whether  you  think 
it  possible  that  our  Episcopacy,  composed  of  men  called 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  promoted  to  the  itinerancy  by  two 
distinct  acts  of  the  membership,  with  specified  restric- 
tions upon  their  authority,  and  within  the  limitations 
which  disting-uish  Church  from  civil  authority,  can  be 
anti-Republican  ?  !  !  !  If  you  can  reiterate  the  charge, 
I  must  say  I  think  your  convictiou  hopeless,  and  your 
case  will  then  be  an  instance  of  a  most  excellent  judg- 
ment, overpowered  by  a  stronger  prejudice.  It  will  re- 
mind me  of  an  ancient  orator,  who,  when  a  tumult  arose 
among  the  people  for  want  of  bread,  and  he  failed  to 
quiet  them  with  the  assurance  that  violence  could  not 
create  food,  remarked,  the  cause  of  his  failure  was,  the 
belly  had  no  ears.  If  I  have  failed  to  satisfy  you  that 
we  are  very  good  Republicans,  it  will  be  because  preju- 
dice is  very  deaf,  and  can  neither  understand  facts  nor 
logic.     But  I  hope  better  things  of  you.  ■ 

From  the  confident  manner  in  which  you  brandished 
Webster,  in  your  attack  upon  Episcopacy,  I  must  remove 
the  small  difficulty  which  his  definition  has  thx-own  in  the 
way  of  your  conviction.  The  word  Episcopal  may  be 
used  in  either  the  Puseyistic,  or  Romanist,  or  Bible 
sense  ;  we  use  it  in  the  latter,  and  Paul  is  a  better  de- 
finer  of  the  word  than  Webster.  In  Acts  xx.  and  xxviii., 
it  is  said,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers  to 
feed  the  Church."  Now,  the  word  render-ed  overseers,  is 
the  very  word  in  question;  it  is  Episcopous  in  the  Greek, 
the  accusative  plural  of  Episcopos,  and  may  be  translat- 
ed either  overseers  or  bishops,  at  pleasure.     Did  Paul 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  43 

then  know  that  a  "schoolboy  could  see  in  five  minutes" 
that  Episcopal,  the  very  ■word  he  used,  meant  something 
despotic,  and  in  antagonism  with  Republican  institu- 
tions ?  A  word  more  on  this  subject.  Paul  said,  the 
Holy  Ghost  (not  the  people,  take  notice,)  hath  made  you 
overseers  to  feed  the  flock  of  God.  We  shauld  g-uard, 
therefore,  against  the  danger  of  pressing  Republicanism 
into  an  usurpation  of  the  ofiSce  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  have  in  my  hand  a  curious  little  book,  containing  a 
Confession  of  Faith^  and  a  summary  of  Church  Discip- 
line— a  Baptist  Discipline.  It  was  published  for  the 
Charleston  Baptist  Association,  in  1813.  The  Articles 
of  Faith  were  first  adopted  by  a  hundred  baptized  con- 
gregations in  England  and  Wales,  in  1689,  and  there- 
after by  the  Philadelphia  and  Charleston  Baptist  Asso- 
ciations. I  find  many  excellencies  in  it,  and  some  things 
which  might  be  improved.  It  is  not  anti-Republican, 
for  nothing  can  be  anti-Republican  in  Church  govern- 
ment, except  it  distinctly  opposes  civil  laws  ;  but  the 
Church  government  it  describes,  is  very  much  unlike 
the  model  of  our  federal  government.  On  page  6,  of  the 
Discipline,  it  reads,  "  each  distinct  Church  may  exercise 
every  act  of  discipline,  without  being  subject  to  the 
cognizance  of  any  other  Church,  Presbytery,  Synod,  or 
Council  whatever." 

On  page  58,  of  the  volume,  it  says  that,  "  messengers 
of  the  Churches  assembled,  are  not  entrusted  with  any 
Church  power  properly  so  called,  or  with  any  jiuisdic- 
tion  over  the  Cliurches  themselves,  to  exercise  any  cen- 
sures, either  over  any  Churches  or  persons."  And  on 
page  28,  "  The  Baptist  Association  arrogates  no  higher 
title  than  that  of  an  advisory  council — it  is  by  no  means 


44  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

to  be  deemed  a  superior  judicature — it  presumes  not  to 
impose  its  sentimeats  upon  its  constituents  under  pain 
of  excommunication."  Now,  if  our  Federal  Government 
were  formed  on  tins  model,  and  our  Federal  Congress 
were  made  a  mere  advisory  council,  without  even  the 
power  of  uttering  censures,  much  less  of  making 
laws,  then  our  government  would  be  a  farce;  and  our 
executive  and  judiciarj*  would  be  destroyed.  In  truth, 
we  would  have  no  government  at  all.  Our  State  Go- 
vernment, if  formed  after  this  beautiful  model,  would  in 
like  manner  be  farcical,  without  a  Supreme  Court  or  an 
Executive,  and  our  country  would  present  the  spectacle 
of  an  immense  number  of  broken  neighborhoods,  having 
severally  the  supreme  power  in  their  hands,  and  per- 
fectly denationalized.  Verily,  this  is  rather  Red-Repub- 
licanism ! 

It  is  true,  your  Associations  can  declare  non-fellow- 
ship with  any  Church — that  is  to  say,  you  can  virtually 
turn  out  a  whole  Church,  for  non-fellowship  amounts  to 
this  :  if  they  exercise  the  Christian  liberty,  dear  to  the 
Lord's  freemen,  of  partaking  of  the  Holy  Communion 
with  their  orthodox  brethren — and  yet  your  Association 
"  cannot  censure  either  Churches  or  persons."  It  is  not 
my  business  to  reconcile  these  contradictions.  This 
view  of  your  Church  government,  prepares  me  to  un- 
derstand the  remark,  not  of  an  enemy,  but  of  a  leading 
man  in  your  Church,  the  editor  of  the  Baptist  Recorder 
and  Register,  New  York.  I  quote  from  the  last  S.  C. 
Advocate.  He  says,  "  We  (Baptists)  present  ourselves 
to  the  world,  a  bod}'  rent  by  multiform  divisions,  animat- 
ed by  anything  but  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  illustrating 
anything  but  the  theoiy  of  regenerated  Churches."    This 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  45 

is  a  sad  picture — I  would  it  were  better.  I  find  on  page 
15  of  the  Discipline,  another  rather  un-Eepublican  fea- 
ture in  your  economy.  "  To  dismiss  a  member  to  the 
world  at  large  ought  never  to  be  done  any  other  way 
than  by  excommunication;"  and  on  page  23,  "  As  con- 
sent is  necessary  to  a  person's  coming  into  the  Church, 
so  none  can  go  out  of  it  without  its  consent."  Hence, 
if  a  Baptist  becomes  a  Presbyterian,  or  a  Methodist, 
he  is  invariably  expelled.  This  is  Republicanism  with 
a  vengeance  1  Does  it  not  look  like  forcing  your  mem- 
bers to  remain  Baptists  ?  I  pass  by  the  fact,  page  6, 
that  female  members  are  excluded  from  all  share  of  rule 
in  your  Church. 

In  conclusion,  I  admit  all  that  you  affirm  of  Robert 
Hall's  disapproval  of  the  war  with  the  American  Colonies, 
though  he  was  a  good  subject  of  the  English  Monarchy. 
I  reverence  the  man  for  his  genius,  and  for  his  piety, 
and  for  his  abhorrence  of  your  practice  of  close  com- 
munion, concerning  which  he  says,  page  22t,  vol.  2, 
"  With  mingled  surprise  and  indignation  they  behold  us 
(Baptists)  making  pretensions  which  no  other  denomin- 
ation of  Protestants  assumes  ;  placing  ourselves  in  an 
attitude  of  hostility  to  the  whole  Christian  world." 
Again  :  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  Church  of  Rome  that 
has  excited  more  indignation  and  disgust  than  this  very 
pretension."  Lastly,  allow  me  say,  the  noble  spirits 
among  you  who  attend  to  the  legitimate  functions  of 
the  ministry,  preaching  Christ,  and  him  crucified,  will 
do  good,  whether  the  deficiencies  of  your  government 
be  few  or  many.  May  God  speed  their  holy  labors. 
Fraternally  yours,  &c. 
May  24th,  1855.  .  E,  J.  HAMILL. 


46  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  II. 

The  zeal  and  spirit  of  Mr.  Hamill  commended  ;  Precise  question  at 
issue  ;  Foreign  topics ;  Episcopacy  a  transplant  from  Europe  ; 
Analogy  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church ;  Singular  way  of  proving  two  orders  in  the  Me- 
thodist ministry  ;  Bishops  Soule  and  Capers  ;  Mistake  corrected  ; 
The  right  of  appeal ;  The  part  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  first  preachers 
took  in  our  Revolutionary  "War  ;  Not  probable  that  they  would 
impart  the  clement  of  Republicanism  to  a  religious  structure  ; 
James  O'Kelly,  William  M'Kendree,  Rice  Haggard,  and  others; 
An  effort  to  reform  the  system  in  1824  and  1828  ;  Insulting  an- 
swer of  the  General  Conference  to  sundry  memorials  ;  Exclusion 
and  suspension  of  the  reformers ;  Moral  heroism  of  "  fifty  fe- 
males "  ;  Acts  XX.  28  ;  No  connection  between  Bible  and  Methodist 
Episcopacy;  Sophistry  in  the  use  of  the  term  "  Puseyistic"  ; 
Itinerant  plan  ;  Episcopacy  defined  ;  The  "  Democratic  Element"; 
Baptist  anarchy  ;  "  Close  communion"  ;  Specimen  of  logic  ;  An- 
other "  fancy  sketch"  from  the  "youthful  Bascom  "  ;  Courtesy 
asked. 

"But  be  ye  not  called  Rabbi;  for  one  is  yonr  Master,  even  Christ;  and  all  lit 
ARK  BREinREN."— Jesus  Christ. 

We  adniire  tbe  zeal  of  Brotlier  Hamill,  in  defending 
Jfethodist  Episcopacy — a  zeal  truly  worthy  of  the  best 
of  causes.  Perhaps  his  discretion  may  not  be  so  highly 
commeiKled,  even  by  many  members  of  his  own  com- 
munion. Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  it  is  evident  that 
he  clings  to  the  Episcopal  feature  of  his  Church  with 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  4Y 

Tinyielding'  tenacity  ;  and  that  if  it  is  ever  changed,  no 
part  of  the  glory  or  shame  of  such  a  revolution  v/ill  ever 
be  his  heritage.  We  repeat,  the  fervent  zeal  of  our 
good  brother  excites  our  admiration — and  we  maj'  add 
that  the  spirit  in  which  he  writes  is  worthy  of  all  praise. 
If  Episcopal  Methodism  cannot"  be  "feho wn  to  be  Repub- 
lican and  Democratic,  it  will  not  be  for  the  want  of 
either  zeal  or  ability.  ^Vo  presume  Brother  Hamill  is 
as  competent  to  discuss  this  subject  as  any  member  of 
the  Alabama  Conference.  And  if  he  fails  in  this  de- 
fence, it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  it  will  be  because  the 
polity  of  that  Church  cannot  be  defended  before  an  Ame- 
rican constituency. 

The  precise  question  at  issue  between  Brother  Hamill 
and  ourself  is  this — Is  Mclhodist  Episcopacy  anti-Democratic 
and  anti-Bepublican?  We  affirm,  he  denies.  He  will 
not  consider  it  strange,  therefore,  if  we  rule  out  every- 
thing which  does  not  bear  upon  the  main  question. 

And  here  we  must  correct  an  impression  upon  Brother 
Hamill's  mind,  in  regard  to  his  "thirteen  points."  He 
seems  to  think  that,  because  we  did  not  answer  them 
seriatim,  they  are  unanswerable.  We  supposed  that 
in  so  far  as  these  points  involved  the  main  issue  in 
the  article  from  the  "Western  Watchman,"  to  wit :  That 
Methodist  Episcopacy  is  anti-American — wo  had  ans- 
wered them  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  So  far  as  that 
article  related  to  a  proscription  of  Methodists  polllically 
for  their  religious  seuthnents,  we  did,  and  Ave  do  now, 
utterly  repudiate  it.  We  fight  Episcopacywith  different 
weapons,  liut  so  far  as  that  article  discussed  the  polity 
of  the  Methodist  Church  as  an  element  in  the  formation 
of  character,  religious  or  political,  wo  did  regard  it  as 


48  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

falling'  within  the  legitimate  range  of  discussion,  and  as 
such  it  was  transferred  to  our  columns.  Our  brother 
sadly  mistakes  us  if  he  supposes  that  we  had  "repudi- 
ated the  slanderous  article."  K  we  had  regarded  it  as 
"  slanderous,"  it  certainly  would  not  have  been  pub- 
lished.    But  enough  of  this. 

We  are  gratified  that  Brother  Hamill  concedes  that 
the  Episcopal  feature  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  a  pro- 
per subject  for  newspaper  discussion.  While,  however, 
he  admits  "that  ecclesiastical  power  has  been  invoked 
by  princes  since  the  days  of  Oonstantine — and  that  re- 
ligious opinions,  whether  true  or  false,  are  wonderfully 
potent  in  their  influence  upon  the  human  soul,"  he  pro- 
nounces them  "foreign  topics  ....  interwoven  into  this 
debate."  This  to  us  is  not  surprising.  Wonderfully  po- 
tent in  their  influence  upon  the  human  soul,  and  yet  for- 
eign in  a  discussion,  in  which  this  very  power  is  the  sub- 
ject of  debate.  That  is  to  say,  the  most  important  ele- 
ment of  power  which  has  ever  been  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  human  mind,  for  weal  or  woe,  in  moulding  its  habits, 
prejudices,  and  principles,  is  totally  foreign  in  a  contro- 
versy, in  which  its  efiects  are  the  very  point  contested  !  1 
Our  brother  has  showed  his  sagacity  in  excepting  to  the 
introduction  of  such  truths  in  this  discussion.  But 
whether  these  are  "  foreign  topics,"  will  appear  in  the 
course  of  these  remarks. 

We  took  occasion  to  remark  in  our  first  article,  that 
Episcopacy  was  a  transplant  from  a  foreign  soil.  Bro. 
Hamill  responds,  "our  Bible  is  a  foreign  transportation." 
True  ;  and  if  the  question  were,  whether  Episcopacy 
is  of  Divine  institution,  his  illustration  would  be  in 
point.     But  we  submit  that  he  has  no  right  to  make 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  49 

such  an  assumption  for  Episcopac3^  Christianity  is 
one  thing — Episcopacy  is  quite  a  dififerent  thing.  The 
question  we  are  debating  is  not,  whether  Christianity 
or  the  Bible  is  anti-Republican^but  whether  Episco- 
pacy, as  being  a  vital  element  in  the  structure  of  Me- 
thodism, a  transplant  from  the  despotic  powers  of  Eu- 
rope, and  which  was  foisted  upon  Christianity  by  that 
licentious  tyrant,  Henry  VIII.,  is  in  harmony  with  Ame- 
rican Democracy: — whether  a  principle,  which  despots 
regard  as  essential  to  the  stability  of  their  thrones,  in 
maintaining  their  power  to  rule  the  minds  and  con- 
sciences of  their  subjects,  is  a  safe  principle  to  be  incor- 
porated into  the  organic  laws  of  "  the  largest  denomina- 
tion of  Christians,"  in  a  Republican  government. 

Again  :  To  the  remark  that  "  the  Episcopal  Church 
of  England  is  the  type  of  the  Episcopal  feature  of  the 
Methodist  Church,"  Brother  Ilamill  replies,  "  This  is  a 
very  great  error  for  a  man  of  your  erudition."  Let  us 
see.  In  the  Episcopal  Church  of  England,  all  the  powers 
of  government,  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial,  are 
in  the  hands  of  the  clergy  ;  and  so  it  is  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  In  the  Church  of  England,  the  power 
of  ordination  is  vested  supremely  in  the  hands  of  the 
bishops;  so  it  is  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
In  the  English  Establishment,  the  power  to  supply 
the  Churches  with  pastors  is  vested  in  Episcopal 
hands ;  so  it  is  in  th6  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
In  the  ecclesiastical  councils  of  the  English  Church, 
no  layman's  voice  is  ever  heard;  and  in  the  simi- 
lar councils  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  .the 
principle  of  representation,  on  the  part  of  the  laity,  is 
equally  excluded.  lu  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  Eng- 
5 


50  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

land,  the  revenues  of  the  Church,  which  proceed  from 
the  people,  pass  beyond  their  constitutional  control  into 
the  hands  of  its  rulers  ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  po- 
lity of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if  the  late  Bishop 
Bascom  is  to  be  believed.  To  become  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  England,  a  man  resigns  his  right  of  suffrage; 
and  no  less  is  it  true  of  him  who  attaches  himself  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  so  we  might  run  this 
parallel  to  almost  any  extent.  The  truth  is,  entire 
chapters  and  sections  of  the  ritual  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  are  transferred,  with  very  slight  mo- 
dification, from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The  reader 
has  but  to  compax-e  the  Methodist  Discipline  with  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  he  will  be  no  little  surpris- 
ed at  the  likeness  between  the  mother  and  the  daughter. 
But,  says  Brother  Hamill,  "We  (Methodists)  hold  that 
the  Bible  makes  but  two  orders  in  the  ministry,"  by 
which  lie  means,  we  suppose,  deacons  and  bishops,  or 
elders,  using  these  latter  terms  interchangeably.  If  so, 
then  every  elder  is  a  bishop!  Why  the  ceremonies  of  or- 
dination as  laid  down  in  the  Discipline?  Why  re-ordain 
a  man  to  a  bishoprick,  when  he  has  already  been  ordained 
to  that  office,  since  bishop  and  elder  are  the  same  ?  Our 
brother  has  a  singular  way  of  proving  this.  He  alleges 
that  because  Mr.  Hamline  voluntarily  vacated  his  po- 
sition as  bishop,  and  went  back  into  the  rank  of  elders, 
that  therefore  bishops  and  elders  are  the  same  1  By 
parity  of  reasoning,  because  Charles  V.  resigned  his 
crown  in  his  old  age,  and  went  into  voluntary  seclu- 
sion, therefore  a  German  king  is  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  a  German  citizen  !  But  what  say  the  bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  this  subject  ?  We 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  51 

quote  first  from  the  senior  bishop,  Dr.  Soule  :  "  I  say  if 
this  doctrine  be  a  correct  one,  (that  bishops  are  mere 
officers  of  the  General  Conference,)  I  have  heard  for  the 
first  time,  either  on  the  floor  of  this  Conference,  in  an 
Annual  Conference,  or  throng-li  the  whole  of  the  private 
membership  of  the  Church,  this  doctrine  advanced  :  this 
is  the  first  time  I  have  heard  it." — Report  of  the  Debates 
in  the  Gen.  Con.,  1844,  page  169. 

The  late  Bishop  Capers  spoke  as  follows  on  the  same 
point: — "It  has  been  urged  that  a  bishop  is  only  an 
officer  of  the  General  Conference,  and  that  his  election 
and  not  his  consecration  gives  him  his  authorship  as  a 
bishop.  If  a  bishop  is  no  more  than  an  officer  of  the 
General  Conference,  tohercfore  is  he  consecrated  1  A  bishop 
an  officer  of  the  General  Conference  only  !  And  is  it  in 
such  a  capacity  that  he  ordains  and  stations  the  preach- 
ers of  the  Annual  Conferences  ?  An  officer  of  the  Ge- 
neral Conference  only  !  Then  were  it  untrue  and  blas- 
phemous to  invest  him  with  the  office,  with  these  holy 
words  of  the  consecration  service  :  '  Eeceivc  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  bishop  in  the  Church 
of  God,  now  committed  to  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our 
hands,  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  GhosV  "—Debates,  d-c,  page  181. 

And  here  we  leave  Brother  Hamill  and  the  bishops  to 
settle  this  point,  mooted  for  the  first  time  in  1844, 
merely  remarking  that,  as  imperfect  as  our  knowledge 
of  "Church  government"  may  be,  we  have  been  led  to 
"  make  this  great  mistake"  by  the  bishops  of  his  own 
Church.     So  much,  then,  for  this  "  mistake." 

The  next  "very  important  point"  in  which  our  bro- 
ther says  we  are  mistaken,  is,  that  exclusion  on  the  part 


52  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

of  the  Church  is  subject  to  appeal,  and  may  be  reversed 
by  a  bishop,  &c,  In  this  we  are  partly  mistaken,  and 
intended  to  make  the  correction  before  we  read  Brother 
Hamill's  communication.  We  had  not  observed  the 
distinction  which  the  discipline  makes  between  the  me- 
thod of  procedure  in  the  case  of  a  private  member  and 
that  of  a  preacher.  The  preacher  has  the  right  of  ap- 
peal to  an  Annual  Conference,  the  private  member  to  a 
Quarterly  Conference.  But  the  principle  we  were  dis- 
cussing remains  the  same,  to  wit :  that  the  action  of 
a  particular  Church,  in  excluding  one  of  its  members,  is 
not  a  finality— that  another  power  is  recognized  by  Me- 
thodism, higher  than  the  Church.  And  this  power  is 
called  by  them  Episcopacy.  This  was  the  main  point  we 
we  were  discussing  ;  and  this,  we  suppose,  will  not  be 
pronounced  a  mistake.  And  what  is  true  of  the  final 
exclusion  of  members  from  the  Church,  is  equally  true 
of  their  reception.  The  Church,  as  such,  can  guard 
neither  the  doox  of  ingress  nor  egress.  Who  ever  heard 
of  a  Methodist  minister  consulting  a  Church  as  to  who 
should  become  a  member  of  it  ? 

But  it  is  time  for  us  to  take  up  the  main  subject  of 
this  discussion.  Brother  Hamill  heads  his  article, 
"  Methodist  Episcopacy  not  anti-RepnllicanP  Then  it 
must  be  Eepublican.  Let  us  see  how  far  the  facts  in 
its  history  will  sustain  this  assumption.  We  are  not 
responsible  for  these  facts  ;  we  find  them  recorded  up- 
on the  impartial  page  of  history,  and  we  use  them  with 
no  unkind  feeling  to  our  Methodist  brethren.  To  begin, 
then,  at  the  beginning  :  In  lt15,  Mr.  Wesley  published 
a  communication  in  Lloyd's  Evening  Post,  of  which  the 
following  is  an  extract: 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  53 

"  Now,  there  is  no  possible  way  to  put  out  this  flame, 
[our  Revolutionary  strugg'le,]  or  hinder  its  rising  high- 
er and  higher,  but  to  show  that  the  Americans  are  not 
used  either  cruelly  or  unjustly;  that  they  are  not  injured 
at  all,  seeing  they  are  not  contending  for  liberty;  (this 
they  had  even  in  its  full  extent,  both  civil  and  re- 
ligious,) neither  for  a,uj  legal  pniilcges ;  for  they  enjoj'' 
all  their  charters  grant.  But  what  they  contend  for  is, 
the  illegal  privilege  of  being  exempt  from  Parliamentary 
taxation — a  privilege  this  which  no  charter  ever  gave 
to  any  American  Colony  yet — which  no  charter  can  give, 
unless  it  be  confirmed  both  by  King-,  Lords,  and  Com- 
mons ;  which,  in  fact,  our  Colonies  never  had  ;  which 
they  never  claimed  till  the  present  reign.  This  being 
the  real  state  of  the  question,  without  any  coloring  or 
aggravation,  what  impartial  man  can  either  blame  the 
King  or  commend  the  Americans  ?  With  this  view,  to 
quench  the  fire  by  lajnng  the  blame  where  it  was  due, 
the  '  Calm  Address'  was  written. 

I  am,  sir,  your  hum.ble  servant, 

JOHX  WESLEY." 

About  the  same  time,  Mr.  Wesley  sent  out  six  mis- 
sionaries to  the  Colonies,  and,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, these  missionaries  reflected  his  political  views. 
They  were  all  Englishmen.  Hence  it  is  said  of  them, 
that  "they  insulted  the  Americans,  calling  them  rebels, 
and  spoke  contemptuously  of  that  cause  which  the  peo- 
ple had  sworn  to  support And  what  was  the  re- 
sult ?  .  .  .  .  Hatred  and  opposition  to  them  wherever 
they  went;  until  at  last,  five  out  of  the  six  fled  for  their 
lives,  and  the  sixth,  Mr.  Asbury,  was  obliged  to  lie  con- 
cealed in  Mr.  White's,  in  the  State  of  Delaware.* — Let- 
ters oil  Methodist  Episcopacy,  by  A.  McCaine,  page  '10. 

• 
*  Sec  Appendix  A. 


64  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Such  were  some  of  the  fathers  of  Methodism.  To 
what  extent  they  were  capable  of  imparting  the  element 
of  Republicanism  to  the  structure  they  were  about  to 
rear,  is  left  to  the  good  sense  of  the  reader.  We  have 
some  other  interesting  facts  in  this  connection,  and  in 
regard  to  the  other  fathers  of  this  system,  to  which 
we  may  hereafter  recur.  We  beg  to  be  understood 
as  not  impeaching  the  patriotism  of  the  member- 
•ship  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  believe 
them  to  be  as  sincere  Democrats  and  Eepublicans — as 
sincere  lovers  of  their  country,  as  any  community  of 
Christians  in  the  United  States.  We  only  wish  they 
were  in  religion  what  they  are  in  politics.  And  since 
religion,  whether  propcrh'-  or  improperly  conceived,  is 
stronger  than  politics,  and  has  in  its  history  subverted 
all  forms  of  government,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer,  that  a 
time  may  come  again  when  the  less  shall  give  way  to 
the  greater.  And  the  only  provision  we  can  make 
against  such  an  emergency,  is,  so  to  construct  our  eccle- 
siastical organizations,  as  to  render  such  a  contingency 
impossible.  This,  we  believe,  our  Methodist  brethren 
ought  to  do  in  their  Church  polity. 

But  let  us  see  to  Avhat  extent  the  subsequent  history 
of  Methodist  Episcopacy  sustains  the  declaration  of 
Brother  Ilamill — "Methodist  Episcopacy  not  anti-Eepub- 
lican."  We  shall  only  bring  out  two  facts  at  present, 
that  the  reader  may  see  to  what  extent  the  polity  of 
"  the  largest  denomination  of  Christians"  in  this  country, 
harmonizes  with  our  Democratic  Ec'iDublican  form  of 
government. 

In  the  year  1192,  one  year  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, 4,he  Eev.  James  O'Kelly,  alarmed  at  the  "exorbt 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  55 

tant  powers  of  the  bishops  "  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution at  a  General  Conference  : 

"  Eesolved,  That  after  the  bishop  appoints  the  preach- 
ers, at  Conference,  to  their  several  circuits,  if  any  one 
think  himself  injured  b}^  the  appointment,  he  shall  have 
the  right  to  appeal  to  the  Conference,  and  state  his  ob- 
jections ;  and  if  the  Conference  approve  his  objections, 
the  bishop  shall  appoint  him  to  another  circuit." 

This  resolution,  after  being  discussed  for  three  days, 
was  negatived  by  a  large  majority  ;  whereupon  the 
Eev.  James  O'Kelly,  William  McKendree,  (afterwards 
bishop,)  Rice  Haggard,  and  others,  withdrew  from  the 
connection.  So  sedulously  have  they  guarded  that  ir- 
revocable decree,  viz  :  Thou  shalt  not  change  or  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away 
Ejpiscojpacy,  &c.  Even  the  right  of  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  a  bishop,  or,  as  Brother  Ilamill  would  fain 
make  us  believe,  the  "permanent  moderator"  of  the 
Conference  is  denied.  This  is  moderating  with  a  ven- 
geance !  "We  leave  to  our  brother  the  pleasing  task  of 
cxliibiting  the  peculiar  Ecpublican  features  of  this  as- 
pect of  the  clierished  dogma  of  his  Church. 

In  the  year  1824,  a  movement  was  commenced  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurch,  among  many  of  the  minis- 
ters and  laymen,  having  reference  to  such  modification 
of  the  organic  law  of  that  Church,  as  would  secure  to 
the  laity  an  equal  representation  with  the  ministry,  in 
tlicir  legislative  councils.  Union  Societies  were  formed 
in  pcrliaps  every  State  in  the  confederacy,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discussing  tliis  question  and  petitioning  the 
next  General  Conference,  which  was  to  meet  in  1828, 
to  incorporate  this  principle  of  representation  into  their 


56  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

constitution.  Had  tbe  membership  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  the  right  to  form  these  societies,  dis- 
cuss this  question,  and  petition  the  General  Conference  ? 
0  yes,  says  Brother  Hamill,  "The  freest  expression  of 
sentiment  is  indulged  without  blame."  Only  let  "  no 
man  promulge  Unitarianism  or  Universalism,"  or  such 
like  heresies,  and  the  most  perfect  freedom  of  speech 
may  be  enjoyed.  "  Discussion,  whether  oral  or  written, 
but  unfolds  its  wisdom  and  its  beauty."  Well,  we  pro- 
pose "  unfolding"  one  of  these  "  beauties"  for  the  admir- 
ation of  the  reader.  Nothing  strikes  us  like  a  fad.  A 
living,  acting,  moving  "  beauty"  is  worth  ten  thousand 
creations  of  fancy. 

The  original  promoters  of  this  movement  recommend- 
ed the  formation  of  these  Union  Societies  throughout 
the  United  States,  and  resolved  to  publish  a  periodical 
pamphlet,  one  of  which  we  have  before  us,  entitled, 
"  The  Mutual  Eights  of  the  Ministers  and  Members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  the  Methodist  community  a  suitable  opportunity 
■to  enter  upon  a  calm  and  dispassionate  discussion  of 
the  subjects  in  dispute."  A  "  calm  and  dispassionate" 
inquiry  as  to  whether  private  members  and  local  preach- 
ers had  any  rights  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  if  so, 
what  those  rights  were,  it  might  be  supposed  would 
have  been  tolerated  with  impunity  in  a  Church  so  pe- 
culiarly RepnUican  in  its  organization,  as  wo  would  be 
made  to  believe  Methodism  to  be.  But  how  was  this 
movement  treated  ?  "  In  Tennessee,  fourteen  official 
members  were  expelled  for  attempting  to  form  a  Union 
Society  1".  "  In  North  Carolina,  several  members  of  the 
Granville  Union  Society  were  expelled  for  being  mem- 


METHODIST-  EPISCOPACY.  51 

bers  thereof."  "In  the  fall  of  182T,  eleven  ministers 
•were  suspended,  and  finally  expelled  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  city  (Baltimore,)  and  twenty- 
two  laymen,  for  being  members  of  the  Union  Society, 
and  supporters  of  the  mutual  rights."  Some  "  fifty  fe- 
male friends  of  these  suspended  and  expelled  brethren 
immediately  withdrew  from  the  Church,  after  addressing 
a  letter  to  the  preacher  in  charge,"  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  an  extract  : — "  To  find  our  dear  companions,  fa- 
thers, brothers,  children,  and  friends,  treated  as  crimin- 
als and  enemies,  persecuted,  suspended,  and  expelled, 
denounced  as  backsliders  and  disturbers  of  the  peace, 
and  ourselves  treated  coldly  and  distantly  by  our  former 
friends,  and  by  our  pastors,  and  all  for  a  mere  difference 
of  opinion  about  Church  government,  is  more  than  we  feel 
bound  in  Christian  charity  longer  to  endure  ;  and  there- 
fore we  feel  it  our  duty,  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  withdraw 
from  the  Church."  Noble  women  !  Your  names  deserve 
to  be  recorded  upon  the  same  page  of  history  with  those 
who  signed  our  Declaration  of  Independence  !  The 
Protestant  Methodist  Church  will  not  have  discharged 
its  duty  to  posterity  if  it  fail  to  preserve  your  names 
among  its  richest  memories  I 

But  in  the  Conference  of  1824,  several  memorials  were 
presented,  "  praying  that  the  government  of  the  Church 
might  be  made  representative,  and  more  in  accordance  with 
the  mutual  rights  of  the  ministers  and  people."  And  how 
were  these  memorials  treated — memorials  which  sought 
to  incorporate  into  the  Methodist  economy  the  vital  ele- 
ment of  our  happy  civil  institutions  ?  The  Conference 
replied  in  a  circular  of  some  length,  in  which  this  re- 


58  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

markable  passage  occurs  : — "  Pardon  us  if  we  know  no 

SUCH  RIGHTS,  IF  WE  COIIPREHEND  NO  SUCH  PRIVILEGES  !"      Wo 

could  use  as  many  exclamation  points  here  as  Brother 
Hamill,  but  we  are  fearful  the  stock  would  become  ex- 
hausted. And  moreover,  we  prefer  -simply  to  state 
facts,  and  let  the  reader  supply  as  many  as  he  chooses. 
We  are,  therefore,  prepared  to  answer  Brother  HamilPs 
question — "  I  ask  you  solemnly,  whether  you  think  it 
possible  that  our  Episcopacy,  composed  of  men  called 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  promoted  to  the  itinerancy  by  two 
distinct  acts  of  the  membership,  with  the  specified  re- 
strictions upon  their  authority,  and  within  the  limita- 
tions which  distinguish  Church  from  civil  authority,  can 
be  anti-Republican  ?"  The  odium  of  an  obtuseness, 
whether  mental  or  moral,  which  cannot  see  either  De- 
mocracy or  Republicanism  in  a  system,  whose  founders 
threw  the  weight  of  their  religious  character  against 
our  revolutionary  struggle — whose  very  father  declared, 
"  we  are  no  Republicans,  and  never  intend  to  be," — the 
constituted  authorities  of  which,  in  answer  to  meme- 
rials  asking  for  representation  on  the  part  of  the  private 
members,  answer  such  memorials  in  the  very  vernacular 
of  the  most  absolute  despotisms,  "  pardon  us  if  we  know 
no  such  rights,  if  we  comprehend  no  such  privileges," — 
from  the  communion  of  which,  ministers  and  laymen  are 
suspended  and  expelled  for  discussing  and  seeking  to 
secure  their  mutual  rights  to  representation  in  its  law- 
making power — we  say,  the  odium'  of  an  obtuseness 
which  cannot  see  either  "the  wisdom  or  beauty,"  or  the 
Democracy  and  Republicanism  of  such  a  structure,  we 
must  be  content  to  bear.      Our  "judgment"  ir^ay  be 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  59 

"  overpowered  by  a  strange  prejudice."  Perliaps  the 
reader  will  be  reminded  of  the  well  known  couplet  of 
Hudibras  : 

"  Keen  optics,  sir,  it  takes,  I  ween, 
To.see  what  is  not  to  be  seen." 

"Pardon  us  if  we  know  no  sicch  rights,  if  we  comprehend 
no  Slick  privileges .' '^  And. this  language  was  uttered  in 
the  "monumental  city"  of  this  Union,  and  in  sight  of 
the  venerable  statue  of  AVashingtox  !  It  was  uttered 
in  response  to  an  humble  and  respectful  petition  from 
a  constituency  asking  for  a  representation  in  the  legisla- 
tive councils  of  a  body  claiming  and  exercising  the  right 
of  taxation,  the  very  principle  asked  for  by  our  fore- 
fathers, and  the  denial  of  which  on  the  part  of  the  Bri- . 
tish  Government,  provoked  our  Ecvolutionary  war  ! 
And  it  was  uttered  by  the  constituted  authorities  of  an 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy  for  which  a  serious  claim  is  en- 
tered, that  it  is  "wof  anti-Eepublican" — that  it  possesses 
"  the  Democratic  element!"  Is  it  uncharitable  to  say  that 
such  a  reply  to  such  a  petition,  is  enough  to  flush  the 
cheek  of  every  American  citizen  with  indignation? 

But  Bro.  Uamill  excepts  to  our  resort  to  "Webster  for 
a  definition  of  terms,  by  entering  what  the  lawyers  call 
a  special  plea.  lie  seeks  to  identify  Methodist  and 
Bible  Episcopacy.  Hear  him  :  "The  word  Episcopal 
may  be  used  in  either  the  Puseyistic,  Eomanist,  or 
Bible  sense  ;  wo  use  it  in  the  latter — and  Paul  is  a  bet- 
ter definer  of  the  word  than  AVebster.  In  Acts  xx.  28, 
it  is  said,  'The  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers  to 
feed  the  Church.' "     We  must  again  notify  our  brother, 


60  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

that  it  is  Methodist  Episcopacy,  and  not  Bible  Episco- 
pacy that  we  are  discussing.  We  believe  that  if  Paul 
had  more  authority  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
than  he  has,  instead  of  seven  bishops,  there  would  be 
just  as  many  bishops  as  there  are  Churches  in  that  con- 
nection. Take,  for  instance,  his  address  to  the  Church 
at  Philippi  :  "Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Jesus  Christ  which  are 
at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  Here  there 
was  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  a  single  Church.  We  must 
say,  however,  that  our  brother  is  quite  unfortunate  in 
referring  to  this  passage.  The  verse  reads  thus : 
"  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the 
flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  over- 
seers, to  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood."  This  is  a  part  of  Paul's 
address  to  "the  Elders  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus."  The 
word  "overseers"  in  the  original,  as  Brother  Hamill 
shows,  is  Episcopous,  ac.  pi.  of  Episcopos,  the  word 
usually  translated  bishop  in  our  version.  Substituting 
this  term,  then^for  the  one  in  use,  the  passage  would 
read,  "  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops." 
Then  there  was  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  the  Church  at 
Ephesus,  as  well  as  at  Philippi.  Were  these  bishops 
pastors  ?  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  In  the  polity 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  does  the  Holy  Ghost 
or  the  bishop  appoint  the  overseers  ? — or  are  bishop  and 
Holy  Ghost  identical  terms  ?  And  when  so  appointed, 
is  it  lawful  to  call  them  bishops,  as  the  original  term 
imports,  or  "circuit  riders  and  elders?"  Or  if  it  is 
claimed  that  the  word  overseers  or  bishops  in  this  passage 
Paul  refers  to  an  order  of  the  clergy  so  designated  in 


METHODIST  EPISCOPxiCY  61 

the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  ask,  is  there  a  Me- 
thodist bishop  on  this  continent  who  has  the  oversight 
of  a  "flock"  or  "Church."  We  want  no  better  evidence 
than  this  passage  affords,  that  Bible  Episcopacy  and 
Methodist  Episcopacy  are  the  poles  asunder. 

But  this  b}^  the  way.  We  do  not  propose  arguing- 
this  question  now,  as  it  is  a  manifest  changing  of  the 
issue — -a  privilege  which  we  cannot  recognize  in  this 
discussion. 

But  did  the  reader  observe  the  care  with  whicli  the 
foregoing  sentence  was  written  ?  "The  word  Episco- 
pal may  be  used  in  either  the  Puseyistic,  Romanist,  or 
Bible  sense,"  &c.  In  no  other  sense,  Brother  Eamill  ? 
We  admire  the  dexterity  with  which  you  guard  the  re- 
putation of  the  mother.  Why  did  you  not  use  the  word 
English,  or  Protestant,  instead  of  Puseyistic  ?  Was 
there  a  lurking  suspicion  upon  jonr  mind,  that  if  Eng- 
lish Episcopacy  were  place^  in  the  same  category  with 
that  of  Rome,  Methodist  Episcopacy  might  share  the 
same  fate  ?  Pardon  us  if  we  regard  this  as  the  best 
evidence  you  could  furnish,  that  our  position  remains 
impregnable,  your  argument  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing— that  English  Episcopacy  is  the  type  of  Me- 
thodist Episcopacy, 

As  to  the  "itinerant  plan"  of  preaching  the  Gospel, 
Brother  Hamill  admits  that  it  has  no  vital  connection 
with  Episcopacy,  since  it  is  pursued  by  the  Wesleyan 
Methodists  of  England,  and  by  the  Protestant  Mctliodists 
of  this  country.  And  he  raiglit  have  added,  various 
other  denominations.  Presbyterians,  Cougregational- 
ists,  Baptists,  and  many  otliers,  have  adopted  the  plan, 
wherever  and  whenever  the  exigencies  demanded.  Wc 
6 


62  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

protest,  therefore,  that  Episcopacj^is  not  entitled  to  the 
credit  of  that  which  is  common  to  all  forms  of  Church 
government  ;  and  that  any  argument  based  upon  such 
an  assumption,  can  prove  no  more  for  Episcopacy  than 
for  Congregational  or  Presbyterial  government. 

We  must  set  our  brother  right  on  another  point.  To 
our  remark  that  Metliodist  Episcopacy  possesses  legis- 
lative, executive,  and  judicial  powers  ;  and  that  inas- 
much as  the  laity  had  no  voice  in  either  of  these  depart- 
ments of  its  government,  it  must  necessarily  be  anti-  ■ 
Republican,  he  replies,  "  It  possesses  no  such  powers  ; 
our  bishops  have  no  legislative  powers  whatever  or 
anywhere.  .  .  .  They  have  not  so  much  as  a  vote  in  any 
of  our  Church  councils."  Let  us  say  once  for  all,  that 
in  applying  the  term  Episcopacy  to  the  government  of 
the  Methodist  Church,  we  mean  that  it  is  a  government  of 
the  clergy,  in  contradistinction  to,  and  independenily  of  the 
people.  This  we  suppose  to  be  the  idea  represented  by 
Episcopacy  in  the  "Disciphne."  Why  should  a  bishop 
care  to  vote,  when  he  has  the  w^hole  Conference  at 
command,  and  can  "  say  to  one  come,  and  he  cometh  • 
and  to  another  go,  and  he  goeth  ?" — when  he  has  but  to 
utter  his  authoritative  voice,  and  every  minister  in  the 
Conference  marches  to  his  assigned  field,  without  know- 
ing one  moment  before  the  command  is  uttered,  what 
his  destination  is  ?  As  well  might  it  be  said,  that  be- 
cause the  kings  of  England  never  had  a  vote  in  Parlia- 
ment, therefore  the  British  Government  is  a  pure  Demo- 
cracy !  We  are  astonished  that  our  brother  never  saw. 
the  obvious  fallacy  of  such  an  argument.  But  perhaps 
it  was  the  best  apology  for  Episcopacy  he  could  make. 

"  A   Church    scripturally   organized,"   says   Brother 


METHODIST  EnSCOPACY.  63 

Ilamill,  "  must^-therefore  blend  in  its  government  'the 
theocratic  element,  for  Christ  is  King  ;  the  ecclesiastic, 
for  he  hath  made  such  '  overseers  to  feed 'the  Church  of 
God  : '  and  the  Democratic,  for  hy  their  fruits  ye  shall  hicno 
them — who  are  Christ's  appointees."  Now,  we  do  posi- 
tively aver,  that  we  have  looked  at  this  sentence  time 
and  again,  and  we  cannot  discover  "  the  Democratic 
element."  And  so  anxious  are  we  to  find  it,  tliat  we 
hereby  promise  to  give  any  man  a  copy  of  the  South 
IVesfern  Baptist  for  one  year,  who  will  point  out  the 
"  Democratic  element"  in  this  sentence.  It  reminds  us 
of  a  problem  we  heard  in  school-boy  days, — "  If  the 
kitchen  be  fifteen  feet  square,  how  far  is  it  to  the 
spring?" 

As  we  are  not  discussing  the  form  of  government  pe- 
culiar to  the  Baptists,  the  reader  will  pardon  us  for  per- 
mitting all  that  Brother  Hamill  says  on  that  subject  to 
pass  unnoticed  for  the  present  at  least.  That  has  no 
sort  of  connection  with  this  discussion.  His  very  ob- 
jections to  the  Baptist  form  of  Church  government  arc 
based  upon  the  principle  in  his  Church,  which  places  it 
in  antagonism  with  American  Democracy,  to  wit  :  the 
people  are  incompetent  to  govern  themselves,  and  therefore  ought 
to  he  excluded  from  the  legislative  councils  of  his  Church.  It 
may  be  proper  for  us  to  say,  in  answer  to  his  philippic 
against  us  for  expelling  members,  who  leave  us  and 
join  other  communions,  that  we  do  not  believe  the 
same  person  can  be  a  member  of  two  ChiTrches  at  the 
same;  time  ;  and  when  such  a  case  occurs,  we  simi>ly 
withdraw,  our  Church  jurisdiction  auvi  fellowship  from 
such  person.     We  have  no  other  way  of  disposing  of 


64  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

them.  When  the  present  question  is  disposed  of,  we 
are  ready  to  discuss  that  also. 

But,  to  cap  the  climax.  Brother  Hamill  brings  in  that 
horrible  practice  among  the  Baptists  of  "  close  com- 
munion ! "  and  treats  us  to  an  extract  or  two,  from  Eo- 
hert  Hall,  on  that  subject.  But  what  puzzles  us  is,  to 
find  out  what  this  has  to  do  with  the  subject  in  debate. 
Thrown  into  the  form  of  an  argument,  how  formidable 
it  becomes  !  Here  it  is  :  In  the  opinion  of  Baptists,  the 
Scriptures  teach,  that  sacramental  communion  ought  to 
be  restricted  to  baptized  believers  ;  therefore  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  is  a  Democratic  Republican 
government. 

We  close  with  another  "fancy  sketch"  from  "the 
youthful  Bascom."  Whether  it  is  "  pointless  in  its  as- 
sault upon  our  Episcopacy,"  is  left  to  the  judg-ment  of 
the  reader. 

"  Art.  11th.  No  power  possesses  so  fatal  a  principle 
of  increase  and  accumulation  in  itself,  as  ecclesiastical 
power.  Its  facilities  for  production  and  multiplication 
are  many  and  fearful,  and  should  be  vigilantly  guarded 
against  by  all  who  consider  the  image  of  God  as  close- 
ly connected  with  the  rights  of  man.  And  whenever 
the  growth  and  manifestation  of  this  power,  in  any  of 
its  innumerable  forms  and  modes  of  operation,  shall  clear- 
ly amount  to  an  invasion  of  Christian  rights,  the  injur- 
ed and  oppressed  should  resist  the  encroachment  with 
manly  decision  and  unj'ielding  remonstrance.  In  every 
Church  where  the  principle  of  representation  is  exclud- 
ed, in  the  affairs  of  its  government,  the  right  of  private" 
judgment  becomes  a  nullity,  and  faith  and  practice  are 
necessarily,  to  a  great  extent,  the  offsprings  of  prescrip- 
tion. The  right  of  deciding  what  arc  the  will  and  mind 
of  God,  in  matters  of  faith  and  discipline,  by  prescrip- 
tive interpretation,  is  conceded  in  the  Sci'iptures  to  no 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  05 

man  or  body  of  men,  exclusively.  Of  course,  the  right 
of  judgment  belongs  to  all,  equally  and  inalienably; 
and  when  the  ministry  avail  themselves  of  the  indiffer- 
ence, inattention,  or  ignorance  of  the  people  brought 
imder  their  charge  from  time  to  time,  to  constitute 
themselves  their  legislative  masters  and  executive 
guardians,  they  usurp  the  dominion  of  conscience,  and 
although  never  complained  of,  are  de  facto  religious  ty- 
rants, because  they  assume  and  exercise  rights  that  do 
not,  and  can  not  in  tlie  nature  of  things  belong  to  them. 
It  should  not  be  overlooked,  moreover,  that  when  the 
ministry  are  considered  by  the  laity  as  the  sole  judges 
and  depositories  of  faith  and  discipline,  the  people  lose 
the  only  powerful  motive,  the  only  direct  incentive  they 
can  possibly  have  to  inquire  and  decide  for  themselves, 
in  the  infinitely  momentous  concerns  of  truth  and  duty. 
Such  a  monopoly  of  power  by  the  ministry,  tends  direct- 
ly to  mental  debasement,  consequent  indecision  of  cha- 
racter, insincerity,  and  misguided  zeal." 

We  respectfully  ask  Bi'other  Hamill,  whether  the  same 
courtesy  we  have  extended  to  him  can  be  extended  to 
us  in  some  one  of  the  organs  of  his  denomination — 
whether  it  would  not  be  just  and  proper  for  this  discus- 
sion to  appear  in  the  columns  of  some  one  of  the  "Ad- 
vocates?" Since  "discussion,  whether  oral  or  written, 
only  serves  to  unfold  its  wisdom  and  its  beauties,"  we 
shall  confidently  expect  this  courtesy  to  be  extended. 
As  a  well-known  political  editor  used  to  say,  nous 
vcrons. 

May  24th,  1855. 


66  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


LETTER  III. 


METHODISM   LIKE  ITS  CREED— PEACE  AND 
GOOD  WILL  TO  MAN. 

Christian  courtesy  appreciated;  A  case  of  twisting;  Precious  charity 
of  Mr.  Graves;  Foreign  topics  again;  Sixty  American  preachers; 
Admirable  logic;  Robert  Hall's  opinion  of  Wesley;  Robert  Hall 
repels  the  charge  of  Republicanism  from  Baptists;  Wesley's  view 
of  the  duty  of  American  Methodists;  George  Washington's  prayer 
for  the  prosperity  of  Methodism;  Children's  teeth  not  set  on  edge; 
Thomas  Muncer's  proclamation;  John  Matthias'  and  John  Bocold's 
Republic;  Concession;  Angels  of  the  churches  first  among  equals; 
Paul's  ordination;  Bishop  Capers'  opinion;  Human  instrumental- 
ity designates  the  field  of  ministerial  labor;  Charles  V.  not  Ger- 
man Emperor  by  divine  right;  Corrections;  Hon.  &  Rev.  Baptist 
Noel's  description  of  the  lay  management  in  the  English  Church; 
Retraction  demanded;  What  would  make  the  English  monarchy 
exceedingly  Democratic;  Supposed  one  hundred  Baptist  itiner- 
ants; In  the  business  of  Baptist  State  and  Southern  Conventions 
we  have  lay  management;  What  rights  and  privileges  we  ignore; 
O'Kelly's  resolution;  Cordial  acknowledgment;  The  courtesy  re- 
turned. 

"  Presumpluous  are  they,  self-willed,  they  are  not  afraid  tospeak  evil  of  dignities." — 
Peter. 

Rev.  Mr.  Henderson: 

You  honor  me  in  imagining  me  as  fully  able  to  defend 
Methodism  as  any  of  my  brethren;  I  thank  you  for  your 
high  opinion  of  me;   but  I  would  rather  you  would  as- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY,  61 

cribe  my  success  to  the  fact  that  truth  is  powerful.  My 
zeal  is  certainly  worthy  of  a  better  cause  than  the  de- 
fence of  my  church  from  the  aspersions  cast  upon  our 
Eepublicanism ;  but  when  a  minister  of  so  much  repu- 
tation as  yourself,  endorses  the  charge;  it  becomes  ne- 
cessary to  show  the  untarnished  beauty  of  our  economy. 
The  successful  performance  of  this  task  will  amply  jus- 
tify my  discretion.  You  welcomed  me  cordially  to  your 
columns  in  your  first  commuijication.  Do  you  now  wish 
"  to  rule  out  everything  which  does  not  bear  upon  the 
main  question?"  I  demur  to  your  self-constituted  cen- 
sorship in  this  case.  I  do  not  question  your  right  to 
show,  if  you  can,  the  irrelevancy'  of  my  arguments  to 
the  point  under  discussion;  but  for  a. party  in  debate, 
to  claim  the  power  to  say  in  what  respect  his  opponent 
sliall  not  even  be  heard,  is  an  unheard  of  assumption. 
I  sh'all  not  concede  this  claim,  even  to  the  displacement 
of  a  single  word;  nor  does  this  demand  speak  flatter- 
ingly of  your  courage  in  the  premises. 

You  do  not  now,  it  seems,  repudiate  anything  in  the 
slanderous  drrticle  which  originated  this  discussion; 
onlj'  in  so  far  as  it  "  relates  to  a  political  proscription 
of  Methodists."  You  then  endorse  the  following  posi- 
tions of  that  article — Methodist  Episcopacy  is  a  foe  to 
human  rights — it  exerts  a  paralyzing  influence  over 
freedom  of  thought — it  has  imposed  articles  of  faith  upon 
the  people  without  their  consent — Methodists  degrade 
themselves  by  submission  to  bishops,  in  regard  to 
Church  property,  more  than  Roman  Catholics  —  our 
bishops  control  our  public  moneys,  and  buildings — they 
can  control  the  suifrages  of  our  members,  and  thus,  hold 


68  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  balance  of  political  power  in  their  hands.  Is  it  right 
Brother  Henderson,  to  be  thus 

"  Twisting  in,  and  twisting  out, 
Leaving  tLe  beholder  still  in  doubt  " 

of  what  you  do  allege  against  Methodism?  I  must 
then,  deliberately  say  to  you,  they  are  all,  and  each  of 
them,  utterly  false;  for  proof,  see  my  first  article,  which 
you  have  barely  deigned  to  notice. 

I  think  it  due  the  public  to  state,  that  I  find  a  large 
part  of  the  article  from  the  "  Western  Watchman,"  in 
the  Great  Iron  Wheel,  a  work  written  by  a  Baptist,  the 
Eev.  Mr.  Graves — a  portion  of  the  piece  is  without  -quo- 
tation marks.  See  pages  291,  292,  295,  296,  299,  300. 
A  few  precious  extracts  will  show  the  spirit  of  the  au- 
thor. Mr.  Graves  charitably  classes  "  ruling  elders  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  Methodist  Conferences, 
with  Eio  Nono,  and  styles  them  big  and  little  popes," 
(page  45,  Iron  Wheel).  "We  see  bishops  and  ruling 
elders  lording  it  over  God's  children;"  (page  50.)  "Any 
Pedo-Baptist  Society  is  a  huge  clerical  despotism  itself;" 
(page  50).  On  pages  254,  &c.,  he  calls  "  all  Protestant 
sects  harlots  and  abominations  of  the  earth,"  and  the 
communing  together  of  Methodists  and  Presbyterians, 
"a  blasphemous  farce,  prostituting  the  holy  emblems 
to  the  propagation  of  a  falsehood."  On  page  265,  he 
says  "  Protestant  ministers  have  usurped  Christ's  place, 
and  exercise  his  authority  over  his  Church."  You  may 
imagine  my  surprise  then,  on  discovering  that  the  piece, 
ascribed  in  the  "  Watchman,"  to  some  profound  philo-  _ 
sopher  unconnected  with  any  Church,  was  surely  an  ef- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  69 

fusion  of  the  tender  mercies  of  tlie  lovely  Mr.  Graves, 
whose  charity  is  so  strikingly  displayed  in  the  foregoing 
extracts.  What  meant  this  concealment  of  the  author? 
For  charity  of  this  description,  however,  I  never  gave 
you  credit,  and  therefore  did  not  look  for  you  to  en- 
dorse the  beautiful  sayings  of  such  a  writer. 

"With  regard  to  those  foreign  topics — the  invoking  of 
ecclesiastical  power  by  princes — the  potency  of  reli- 
gious opinions — that  despots  regard  Episcopacy  as  es- 
sential to  their  thrones  ;  what  has  this  to  do  with 
Methodism?  Have  princes  invoked  its  aid?  Do  the 
thrones  of  England,  France,  Austria,  and  Russia,  owe 
their  stability  to  American  Episcopal  Methodism?  Did 
Nebuchadnezzar,  Alexander  the  Great,  Tiberius,  the 
Roman  Emperor,  and  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  all  owe  their 
tlirones  to  Christian  Episcopacy,  and  that  too,  of  Ameri- 
can Methodism?  Did  Henry  YIIL,  that  licentious  tyrant, 
foist  Episcopacy  upon  American  Methodism?  It  would 
be  bold  reasoning  to  affirm  all  this. 

But  John  Wesley  was  a  loyal  subject  of  an  English 
king;  therefore,  our  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  anti-Re- 
publican! and  ^Methodist  Protestantism  also!  Five  out 
of  six  Methodist  preachers  who  were  Englishmen,  fled, 
and  therefore,  the  sixty  American  Methodist  preachers, 
who  in  1784,  some  years  afterwards,  organized  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  anti-Republican  also, 
and  the  Church  they  organized. is  hostile  to  our  institu- 
tions. Admirable  logic!  John  Wesley  was  one  of  the 
greatest,  purest  and  most  useful  men,  since  the  days  of 
the  Apostles — a  man  of  whom  your  great  Robert  Hall 
says,  *'  Whitfield  and  Weslej''  will  be  hailed  by  posterity 
as  the  second  Reformers  of  England."   Ilowbeit,  he  was 


to  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

no  Statesman,  and  knowing  only  the  aristocratic,  and 
despotic  Republics  of  Greece,  Rome,  Genoa,  Florence, 
Venice,  &c.,  he  may  be  pardoned  for  having-  preferred  a 
limited  monarchy,  to  what  he  deemed  an  experiment  in 
government,  the  glorious  results  of  which  no  mortal 
could  have  anticipated.  Rohert  Hull  himself,  thus  repels 
the  charge  of  Repnblicanisvi  from  all  dissenters,  Baptists  and 
others.  "  Dissenters  are  reproached  xnith  the  appellation  of 
Repullicans,  hut  the  truth  of  this  charge  has  neither  appeared 
from  facts,  nor  been  supported  by  any  reasonable  evidence;'' 
(vol.- 2,  p.  82).  Is  it  just  to  conclude  from  this,  that 
American  Baptists  are  anti-Republican?  I  think  not. 
Hear  now,  how  nobly  at  the  close  of  the  war  in  1*184, 
Wesley  speaks  to  ximericans.  "  As  our  American 
brethren  are  totally  disentangled,  both  from  the  State 
and  from  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not  entangle 
them  again,  either  with  the  one,  or  the  other;  they  are 
now  at  full  liberty,  simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and 
the  primitive  Church.  And  we  judge  it  best  that  they 
should  stand  fast  in  that  liberty  wherewith  God  has  so 
strangely  set  them  free."  Nobly  spoken,  John  Wesley! 
Is  this  a  man  hostile  to  our  institutions,  who  says 
God  has  made  them  free?  (Bangs'  History  M.  E.  Church, 
vol.  1st,  p.  152). 

There  is  another  striking  fact  in  the  history  of  Ameri- 
can Methodism.  They  were  the  first  to  present  a  con- 
gratulatory address  to  General  Washington  on  his  ac- 
cession to  the  Presidency.  The  address  and  the  answer 
in  a  few  days,  says  Bangs,  (p.  281,)  were  inserted  in  the 
public  prints;  and  some  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
other  Churches,  appeared  dissatisfied  that  the  Method- 
ists should  take  the  lead,  "In  that  address  they  express 
confidence  that  the  wisdom  and  integrity  of  Washington 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  71 

will  preserve  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  transmit- 
ted to  us  by  the  providence  of  God  and  the  glorious 
revolution."  And  what  does  the  Great  Father  of  our 
country  reply  to  them?  Does  he,  while  the  facts  of  the 
revolution  were  yet  new,  tell  them  they  are  anti-Eepub- 
lican?  No,  but  he  says,  "I  TAKE  IN  THE  KIND- 
EST PART,  THE  PROMISE  YOU  MAKE  OP  PRE- 
SENTING YOUR  PRAYERS  AT  THE  THRONE  OP 
GRACE,  POR  ME,  AND  THAT  I  LIKEWISE  IM- 
PLORE THE  DIVINE  BENEDICTION  ON  YOUR- 
SELVES AND  YOUR  RELIGIOUS  COMMUNITY. 
GEORGE  WASHINGTON."  Verily,  sir,  the  prayer  of 
that  matchless  patriot,  offered  for  the  divine  benediction 
upon  the  Methodist  bishops,  and  the  Methodist  commu- 
nity, will  be  a  shield  to  our  patriotism,  which  the  em- 
poisoned darts  of  malignity  will  never  penetrate.  The 
proof,  that  will  establish  the  anti-Republicanism  of  our 
Episcopacy,  will  also  convict  the  immortal  Washington, 
as  a  traitor  to  Republicanism.  But  rob  us  of  these  glo- 
rious facts  of  Methodism,  and  let  it  be  granted  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  John  Wesley  was  opposed  to 
our  free  institutions;  would  you  hold  us  responsible  for 
it?  Would  you  say  "  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes 
and  set  the  cliildreu's  teeth  on  edge?"  Would  it  be  just 
to  frame  this  anti-Republican  bill  of  attainder  against 
us?  No;  your  conscience  responds  it  is  not  just.  I 
agree  with  you,  and  therefore,  will  not  charge  upon  you 
tlie  licentious  madness  of  the  German  Baptists,  or  Ana- 
Baptists,  as  they  have  been  called.  I  will  refer  to  it, 
however,  that  you  may  see  how  unjust  it  would  be  to 
cliarge  you  with  what  you  utterly  detest. 

In  Orchard's  Baptist  History,  one  of  your  own  publi- 


"12  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

cations,  page  349,  Thomas  Muncer,  of  Mulliausen,  Thu- 
ringia,  is  pronounced  one  of  the  most  eminent  Baptists. 
"  Muncer,"  says  Orchard,  "  stirred  up  the  peasants 
against  the  nobles  and  magistrates  of  Germany."  And 
D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation  gives  us  the  fol- 
lowing proclamation  from  him,  vol.  3,  page  258:  "Arise 
and  fight  the  battle  of  the  Lord.  The  time  is  come. 
France,  Germany,  and  Italy  are  up  and  doing.  Forward^ 
Forward,  Forward— Dran,  Dran,  Dran.  Heed  not  the 
cries  of  the  ungodly.  They  will  weep  like  children,  but 
be  you  pitiless.  Dran,  Dran,  Dran — Fire  burns — let 
your  swords  be  ever  tinged  with  blood.  Dran,  Dran, 
Dran." '  Signed,  Muncer,  God's  servant  against  the  un- 
godly. 

"  They  maintained  that  among  christians  who  have 
the  precepts  of  the  gospel  to  direct,  and  the  Spirit  of 
God  to  guide  them,  the  office  of  magistrate  is  unneces- 
sary, and  an  encroachment  on  spiritual  liberty — and  that 
evezy  man  may  lawfully  marry  as  manywives  as  he  thinks 
proper;"  (Russell's  Modern  Europe,  page  312,  vol.  1). 
After  Muncer  was  put  to  death,  John  Matthias  and  John 
Bocold,  formed  a  singular  kind  of  Republic,  in  Munster, 
from  which  Matthias  wrote  to  his  brethren  in  the  low 
>countries,  inviting  them  to  assemble  at  Mount  Sion 
(Munster,)  to  set  out  in  a  body  and  reduce  all  nations 
under  their  dominion.  After  Matthias  was  slain,  John 
Bocold  was  made  king;  he  took  fourteen  wives,  and 
with  the  community  over  which  he  reigned,  became  a 
fac-similc  of  Mormonism.  I  know  you  repudiate  the  li- 
centiousness, and  tyranny,  of  these  Baptists,  who  would 
have  carried  fire  and  sword,  like  Mahommed,  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  if  they  had  not  been  overthrown. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  IB 

Now,  there  would  be  as  much  logic  and  justice  in  charg- 
ing their  crimes  upon  American  Baptists,  who  abhor 
them,  as  in  charging  Wesley's  loyalty  upon  free  Ame- 
rican Methodists. 

I  concede  your  claims  to  th#  character  of  a  true 
branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  fully  as  if  these  facts 
had  never  darkened  the  history  of  Baptists;  but  not  be- 
cause your  succession  flowed  thfough  this  corrupt  chan- 
nel, but  because  you  reverence  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures;  though  I  wish  you  had  more  respect  for 
that  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  dictated  the 
glorious  Psalms  of  David,  and  because  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is  often  found  in  your  assemblies. 

You  thought,  as  you  brandished  Webster  so  trium- 
phantly, that  Episcopacy  was  in  mortal  hostility  to 
freedom;  but  when  I  referred  you  to  a  better  dcfiner 
than  Webster — Paul — for  which  you  ought  to  thank  me, 
you  admit  that  Bible  Episcopacy  is  divine,  but  you  think 
it  unlike  Methodist  Episcopacy.  Why?  Because  all 
the  elders  were  bishops.  I  admit  it,  and  so  do  all  Me- 
thodist standards.  Why  not  call  them  so?  Because  the 
New  Testament  calls  them  both  elders  and  bishops,  and 
for  the  sake  of  marking  the  distinction  in  office  of  hira 
who  is  called  by  his  brethren  to  preside  over  them  as 
the  primus  inter  pares — the  first  among  equals,  custom 
has  harmlessly  appropriated  the  title  of  bishops  to  them 
alone.  But  New  Testament  bishops  did  not  preside 
over  elders.  You  are  mistaken;  even  in  Ephcsus,  the 
Church  referred  to,  there  was  the  angel  of  the  Church 
of  Ephesus,  and  John  is  ordered  to  write  to  him.  Was 
this  a  celeetial  spirit?  No.  Was  it  the  collective  body 
of  elders?  No;,  but  one  who  was  in  a  higher  degree 
7 


•^4  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

responsible  for  the  integrity  of  the  Church.  It  was,  the 
first  among  equals,  a  president  or  moderator,  if  you 
please,  of  elders.  Hear  Dr.  George  Campbell,  the  Pres- 
byterian: (Eccles.  Lect.  p.  115.)  "  Certain  it  is,  that 
the  very  names  of  Chdtch  officers  were  borrowed  from 
the  synagogue,  which  had  also  its  elders,  overseers, 
deacons,  and  amongst  whom  one  usually  presided,  who 
was  called  the  angel  of  the  congregation,  the  title  given 
by  our  Lord  to  the  president  of  Christian  assemblies." 
Why,  then,  set  an  elder,  if  he  be  a  bishop  already,  apart 
by  an  ordination  service  to  a  higher  office?  Because 
Paul,  who  was  already  an  Apostle,  was  set  apart  by  a 
very  solemn  ordination  service,  for  a  special  work; 
"  When  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away." — Acts  xiii.  3. 
Was  this  intended  to  make  Paul  an  arch  Apostle?  By 
no  means.     Well,  just  such  is  our  ordination. 

Bishop  Capers  contends,  and  so  do  I,  that  if  our 
bishops  were  mere  officers  of  the  Conference,  in  the 
same  sense  as  editors,  and  might  be  removed  without 
cause,  by  a  single  balloting,  they  should  not  be  set  apart  to 
their  office  by  so  solemn  a  ceremonial;  but  he,  in  the  very 
same  passage,  expressly  disavows  high  Churchism.  Onr 
bishops,  sir,  if  not  confined  to  a  single  Church,  like  Paul, 
"have  the  cave  of  all  the  Churches;"  and  in  the  inter- 
vals of  Conferences,  faithfully  labor  in  word  and  doc- 
trine with  the  simplest  of  us.  You  desire  to  know  whe- 
ther, in  the  polity  of  Methodism,  the  Holy  Ghost  or  the 
bishops  appoint  the  overseers?  Or  are  bishop  and  Holy 
Ghost  identical  terms?  Ah,  that  was  the  unkindest  cut 
of  all.  Do  you  wish  to  insinuate  that  our  bishop  is  our 
God?    If  not,  what  can  be  the  meaning  of  your  very  ir- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  75 

reverent  question?  Either  the  Holy  Ghost  called  you 
into  the  ministry,  or  you  have  entered  into  the  fold  by 
some  other  way  than  the  door;  and  you  know  what 
Christ  says  of  such:  "But  if  you  were  called  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  I  need  not  say  to  you  that  human  instru- 
mentality must  designate  your  special  field  of  labor;" 
and  so  it  is  with  us.  I  trust  to  hear  no  more  of  such 
irreverence.  Do  not,  therefore,  fight  against  an  Episco- 
pacy which  is  an  importation  from  inspired  men. 

Bishop  Hamline's  resignation,  with  the  consent  of  his 
brethren,  does  tell  unmistakeably  that  we  hold  but  two 
orders  in  the  ministry,  jure  divino,  by  divine  right;  had 
God  instituted  a  third  order,  and  called  him  to  it,  he 
could  not  innocently  have  resigned  it  without  the  di- 
vine permission,  as  an  elder  cannot,  without  sin,  aban- 
don the  ministry  to  which  he  is  called:  howbeit,  after 
the  example  of  Apostolic  Churches,  we  may  invest  any 
of  these  heaven-called  men  with  a  special  presidency. 
Charles  V.  was  not  German  Emperor,  jure  divino,  he 
never  was  by  divine  right,  which  is  the  point  in  question, 
anything  more  than  a  German  citizen. 

It  now  becomes  my  painful  duty  to  correct  a  whole 
series  of  the  most  palpable  misrepresentations  of  facts  I 
have  ever  known  made  by  an  educated  and  respectable 
minister.  It  is  in  the  analogy  you  have  drawn  between 
the  English  Church  and  ours.  In  doing  this,  I  shall 
quote  from  "The  Union  of  Church  and  State,"  by  the 
Hon.  and  Rev.  Baptist  Noel,  an  open  communion  Bap- 
tist. You  say,  that  in  "the  Episcopal  Church  of  Eng- 
land, all  the  powers  of  government,  legislative,  execu- 
tive, and  judicial,  are  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy — the 
power  to  supply  Churches  is  in  Episcopal  hands — in  the 


16  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ecclesiastical  councils  of  the  English  Church,  no  lay- 
man's voice  is  ever  heard — in  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of 
England,  the  revenues  of  the  Church,  which  proceed  from 
the  people,  pass  beyond  their  constitutional  control  into 
the  hands  of  its  rulers — to  become  a  member  of  the 
Church  of  England,  a  man  resigns  his  right  of  suffrage, 
&c.,  and  so  in  all  these  respects  is  it  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church."  Hear  Mr.  Noel  on  all  these  points 
seriatim:  "Bishops  and  pastors  have  no  manner  of  spirit- 
ual jurisdiction  within  the  (English)  Churches,  but  from 
the  Crown — the  Crown  may  delegate  its  spiritual  autho- 
rity to  ecclesiastical  lawyers,  who  may  exercise  all 
€hurch  discipline  within  the  Churches  in  its  name — all 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  must  acknowledge 
this  supremacy  of  the  Crown  in  spiritual  things,  on  pain 
of  excommunication." — p.  130.  "The  Court  of  Arches, 
acting  by  authority  of  the  Crown,  will  punish  any  min- 
ister who,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  whole  Church  of 
which  he  is  pastor,  should  refuse  the  communion  to  any 
ungodly  person  whom  he  could  not  legally  prove  to  be 
an  open  and  notorious  evil  liver." — p.  159.  And  second- 
ly-— in  England,  the  prelates  (or  bishops)  are  nomi- 
nated by  the  State. — p.  15.  "  In  England,  nearly  all  the 
Churches  have  pastors  imposed  upon  them  by  the  State." 
Again:  "The  Crown  presents  to  952  benefices,  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  to  1248,  ecclesiastical  corporations 
to  187,  dignitaries  to  1851,  colleges  to  721,  and  private 
patrons  to  5096." — p.  217.  And  I  may  add,  the  disposal 
of  these  at  auction  is  very  common,  "The  result  is, 
the  Churches  have  pastors  forced  upon  them  from  these 
five  classes — 1,  college-fellows;  2,  political  adherents  of 
the  Government;  3,  sons  of  patrons;  4,  sons  of  wealthy 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  11 

men,  who  pay  for  situations  for  them;  and  5,  sons  of 
clergymen,  who  find  it  easier  to  educate  their  sons  for 
the  Church,  than  for  any  other  profession." — ^p.  223. 
Thirdly — "Anglican  curates  are  totally  unrepresented  in 
the  sacred  synod  of  the  nation."— p.  328.  Fourthly — "The 
supremacy  of  the  State  determines  the  settlement  of  the 
pastors  within  the  Establishment,  its  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship, its  discipline  and  government." — p.  135.  Fifthly — 
"all  persons  holding  titheable  property,  must  contribute 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  clergy,  whether  they  approve 
of  the  contribution  or  not,  since  the  clergy  may  enforce 
the  payment  of  dues  by  process  of  law." — p.  120.  This, 
too,  from  all  denominations.  "As  the  State  is  the  own- 
er of  the  ecclesiastical  property,  by  which  it  maintains 
the  incumbents  of  the  Establishment,  it  has  a  right  to 
resume  those  funds." — p.  242. 

In  this  picture  of  the  Church  of  England,  ?/ow  have  lay 
managnment  to  the  fullest  extent  you  could  desire — lay  lords, 
and  members  of  Parliament,  and  lay  judges,  with  a  lay 
woman  (Queen  Victoria,)  as  the  head  of  the  Church — 
appointing  bishops  and  pastors,  and  determining  doc- 
trines, worship,  and  government,  and  the  State  taxing 
Methodists,  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians,  under  civil 
penalties,  for  the  support  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

Is  Methodist  Episcopacy  like  this,  sh-?  Docs  the  State 
of  Alabama  do  all  this  for  us?  In  view  of  this  exposure 
of  your  most  palpable  misrepresentations,  by  so  high  an 
authority  as  the  celebrated  Baptist  minister,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Noel,  I  now  formally  demand  of  you,  as  an  honest 
man,  a  solemn  and  unqualified  retraction  of  your  glar- 
ing errors  in  the  points  specified. 


•J3  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

When  you  are  told  our  bishops  have  no  legislative 
power  whatever,  or  anywhere;  no  vote  in  the  trial  of 
either  a  member  or  a  minister;  neither  executive,  legis- 
lative, nor  judicial  power  in  our  General  Conference, 
and  no  executive  authority  in  any  one  of  our  thousands 
of  Churches;  you  seem  to  give  up  the  question  of  the 
anti-Republicanism  of  our  bishops,  and  say  you  mean  by 
Episcopacy — a  government  by  the  clergy.  With  the 
next  breath  you  take  back  your  recantation,  and  wish 
to  know  "Why  should  a  bishop  care  to  vote — as  well 
might  it  be  said  because  the  kings  of  England  never 
had  a  vote  in  Parliament,  therefore  the  British  Govern- 
ment is  a  pure  Democracy."  Now,  without  dwelling 
upon  the  fact,  that  king's  can  dissolve  Parliaments,  and 
even  queens  have  ordered  them  not  to  attempt  to  legis- 
late where  they  forbade  them;  that  no  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment become  laws  of  the  realm  without  the  signature 
of  the  monarch;  though  Bishop  Hamline  said  "It  would 
be  treason  for  a  bishop  to  unseal  his  lips  in  the  General 
Conference," — (Debates,  p.  130) ;  I  will  show  under  what 
conditious  only,  the  analogy  between  an  English  king 
and  an  American  Methodist  bishop  would  hold  good. 
First;  The  office  of  an  English  king  should  be  elective, 
like  that  of  the  bishop.  Secondly ;  The  Parliament  should 
have  the  power  at  every  session  to  inspect  his  acts,  and 
depose  him,  and  even  deprive  him  of  the  rights  of  an 
English  citizen,  if  he  werd  guilty  of  imprudence;  just  as 
our  General  Conference  can  do  with  our  bishops,  for  im- 
prudence. Thirdly;.  That  he  should  have  no  power  to 
either  veto  or  sanction  their  laws,  as  our  bishops  have 
none.  Fourthly;  That  any  member  of  Parliament,  or 
citizen,  might  retire  with  honor  from  under  his  jurisdic- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  >ig 

tion,  as  any  minister  or  member  with  us,  can  demand  a 
certificate  of  good  standing,  with  the  avowed  purpose 
of  joining  another  orthodox  Church.  And  lastly;  That 
Parliament  can  materiallj'^  change  the  powers  of  a  king 
by  a  single  vote,  as  the  General  Conference  can,  the 
power  of  our  bishops.  Now,  my  brother,  you  need  not 
be  astonished  if  I  should  pronounce  such  a  monarchy  as 
that,  exceedingly  Democratic. 

Still  you  think  an  itinerancy,  constituted  such  by  the 
suffrages  of  our  people,  in  two  distinct  votes,  is  anti- 
Republican,  if  it  admits  no  lay  delegation.  Let  us  see; 
suppose,  for  instance,  you  had  one  hundred  Baptist  iti- 
nerant ministers  assembled  in  Convention  in  Montgom- 
ery, to  be  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  in  such  a  way  as  fre- 
quently to  involve  heavy  sacrifices,  severe  labors,  great 
privations,  and  often  pecuniary  loss — all  cheerfully  sub- 
mitted to,  for  the  sake  of  preaching  the  gospel  to 
every  creature — would  you,  could  you,  think  it  fair 
and  just,  and  Republican,  that  laymen,  whose  know- 
ledge of  the  work  and  o£  the  men  must  be  limited,  from 
the  fact  that  their  business  keeps  them  at  home,  and 
who  make  no  such  sacrifices  themselves,  should  rise  in 
Convention  and  order  every  one  of  the  supposed  one 
hundred  Baptist  itinerants  to  their  several  fields  of  la- 
bor, and  then  quietly  return  to  their  homes,  leaving  the 
itinerants,  who  had  no  voice  to  appoint  them  to  a  single 
duty,  to  strike  theii-  tents,  and  go  wherever  these  home- 
keeping  lay  delegates  ordered  them.  I  can  tell  you, 
from  experience,  that  if  you  were  a  regular  itinerant 
Baptist,  you  would  soon  feel,  deeply  feel,  the  one-sided- 
ness  of  such  Republicanism. 

With   regard   to    business   in   which   the   laity   are 


80  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

equally  interested  with  the  ministry  —  such  business 
as  constitutes  the  entire  sphere  of  operations  of  your 
State  and  Southern  Convention — we  have  already  lay 
delegation  and  lay  management;  witness  our  Joint 
Boards  of  Finance,  and  our  Tract,  Sunday  School, 
and  Missionary  operations.  Our  great  Missionary 
Society,  which  disburses  $160,000  annually — our  lar- 
gest collection,  has  eight  lay  and  four  clerical  mana- 
gers; and  so  of  the  rest.  If,  therefore,  a  layman  de- 
mands the  privilege  of  scattering  one  hundred  minis- 
ters to  the  four  winds,  and  then  quietly  retul'ning  home, 
you  will  pardon  us.  Brother  Henderson,  if  we  know  no 
such  rights,  if  we  compre/iend  no  such  privileges — it  would  be 
a  sin  against  Republicanism,  of  which  we  cannot,  as  pa- 
triots, be  guilty.  It  was  a  fit  sentiment  to  be  uttered 
by  our  bishops  in  the  presence  of  the  statue  of  that 
Washington,  whose  blessings  rested  on  their  fathers.. 

But  we  are  anti-Republican  because  J.  O'Kelly's 
resolution  was  lost  by  a  large  majority!  Ah!  indeed! 
Did  J.  O'Kelly  want  lay  delegation  ?  Not  at  all.  If 
the  resolution  had  passed,  we  would  have  been  no  less 
anti-Republican  in  your  estimation.  Had  not  the  ma- 
jority a  right  to  decline  disputing  about  their  appoint- 
ments? You  forget  yourself  if  you  call  this  anti-Repub- 
licanism. Your  frank,  out-spoken,  cordial  acknowledg- 
ment that  Methodists  are  as  sincere  Democrats  and  Re- 
publicans as  any  community  of  Christians  in  the  United 
States,  pleases  me.  "  A  corrupt  tree  cannot  bring  forth 
good  fruit."  I  suppose  you  include  also  our  noble 
bishops  in  this  patriotic  category.  I  return  the  cour- 
tesj,  and  frankly  avow  my  confidence  in  the  patriotism 
of  American  Baptists,  and  the  cheerfulness  with  which 
I  would  see  them  elevated  to  the  highest  offices  in  the 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  81 

land.  I  am  gratified  also  with  your  cordial  endorsement 
of  our  glorious  itinerancy.  I  begin  to  have  some  hopes 
that  you  will  yet  appreciate  justly  our  noble  economy. 
I  have  prepared  a  fall  reply  to  every  single  point  of 
your  last  communication;  but  in  regard  to  your  wish  to 
give  space  for  other  communications  in  your  paper,  I 
withhold  a  portion  of  it. 

In  conclusion,  I  remark,  I  would  gladly  join  you  in 
requesting  the  publication  of  these  articles  in  our 
Church  papers. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

E.  J.  HAMILL. 

June  7th,  1855. 


82  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  III. 

TRUE  ORIGIN  OF  METHODIST  EPISCOPACY. 

Hypothetical' argument;  Interesting  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley;  Mr. 
Wesley  the  father  of  Methodism,  not  of  Episcopal  Methodism;  Ord- 
ination of  Dr.  Coke  as  superintendent,  not  as  bishop,  of  the  Am- 
erican Societies;  Mr.  Wesley's  account  of  it;  Interesting  overture 
of  Dr.  Colie  to  Bishop  White  and  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London; 
Thrilling  letter  from  Presbyter  Wesley  to  Bishop  Asbury;  A  sad 
mistalie  either  in  the  booli  of  Discipline  or  in  History;  The  true 
origin  of  Episcopacy;  The  General  Conference  persists  in  calling 
Mr.  Wesley  t>y  a  name,  than  which  he  affirmed  he  had  rather  be 
"  called  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  scoundrel,  a  rascal;'"  The  "  bitter  pill" 
suppressed;  Two  interesting  authentic  documents  placed  in  juxta- 
position; Bishop  Bascom  doubts  the  historical  probity  of  Sec. 
1st  of  the  book  of  Discipline;  Striking  congruity  between  the 
caption  of  the  article,  and  the  text  of  Scripture  superadded;  Be- 
ing "  a  little  out  of  temper"  distorts  one's  fancy;  unlimited  ranga 
of  discussion  asked  and  conceded;  Points  endorsed  in  the  article 
from  the  Watchman;  Ebullitions  of  passion;  The  charge  of  false- 
hood repelled,  and  an  explanation  asked;  A  chase  after  the  "  Iron 
Wheel;"  Methodist  Episcopacy  not  so  ancient  as  Nebuchadnez- 
zar; Extract  from  a  "Methodist  Hymn;"  John  Wesley  and  Rob- 
ert Hall;  Our  civil  liberties  "so  strangely"  achieved,  despite  Mr. 
Wesley's  efforts;  contrast  between  General  Washington's  respon- 
ses to  the  congratulatory  addresses  from  Methodist  bishops  and 
Baptist  Churches;  The  Munster  affair;  The  "  unkind  cut,"  the 
only  method  of  chastising  clerical  domination;  "Three  ordeis  of 
ministers  are  recognised;"  The  "  tug  of  war;"  A  sad  predicament; 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  83 

"  Glaring  errors;"  Reversing  propositions;  Proof ;  Constitution- 
al officers  of  the  Episcopal  Church  not  private  members;  A  "  so 
lemn  demand  of  an  unqualified  retraction"  declined;  The  predic- 
ament in  which  the  demanded  retraction  would  place  "  our  Epis- 
copacy;" Baptist  W.  Noel;  Endorsement  of  the  answer  of  the 
bishops  to  sundry  memorials;  The  colors  struck. 

"Am  I  therefore  become  your  enemy  because  Ttell  yon  the  truth?"— Paul. 

Up  to  this  time,  our  argument  has  proceeded  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  books  bearing  the  imprimatur 
of  the  "  Methodist  Book  Concern,"  contained  a  faithful 
account  of  the  origin  of  Episcopacy,  as  an  organic  ele- 
ment in  the  structure  of  American  Methodism.  Its 
Episcopacy  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  Johk  Wesley,  Our 
response  has  been:  Suppose  we  grant  this,  so  far  from 
proving  that  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  pure  Kepublican 
democracy,  it  seems  to  us  to  prove  the  very  reverse. 
First,  Because  Mr.  Wesley  threw  the  weight  of  his  per- 
sonal and  ministerial  character  against  our  revolution- 
ary struggle  for  independence,  as  we  have  already 
shown;  and  Secondly,  Because  he  expressly  avowed  on 
the  part  of  himself  and  his  societies,  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
Mason,  dated  "January  13th,  1190,"  seven  or  eight  years 
after  our  independence  was  achieved,  "  We  arc  no  Re- 
publicans, and  never  intend  to  be."  A  short  extract 
from  that  letter  will  be  "  to  our  purpose  quite." 

"My  Dear  Brother: — As  long  as  I  live  the  I'EorLE  shall 
have  no  share  in  choosing  either  stewards  or  leaders 
among  the  Methodists.  We  have  not  nor  never  had, 
any  such  custom.  We  are  no  Hepjiblicans,  and  never  intend 
to  be.  It  would  be  better  for  those  who  are  so  minded, 
to  go  quietly  away." — Wesley's  Works,  vol.  vii.,  p.  98. 

We  say,  granting  all  that  Methodist  authors  claim, 


84  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

tbat  Mr.  Wesley  is  their  patron  saint — their  spiritual 
father  in  respect  of  Episcopacy  as  well  as  other  things 
— it  utterly  annihilates  their  claim  to  Republican  De- 
mocracy in  their  ecclesiastical  polity. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  was  the  father  of  Methodism,  is  con- 
ceded on  all  hands.  We  make  this  concession  to  our 
Methodist  brethren  with  all  cheerfulness,  since  it  honor- 
ably exonerates  Christ  and  his  Apostles  from  all  agency 
in  the  construction  of  that  system.  It  came  into  being 
in  its  present  form,  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty-four  years 
after  tJie.  Christian  era.  But  that  he  is  the  father  of  Epis- 
copal Methodism,  is  not  quite  so  clear.  The  truth  is, 
Mr.  Wesley  was  a  member  and  presbyter  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  so  far  as  we  have  ever  learned,  he  never 
withdrew  from  it  to  the  day  of  his  death.  This  we 
think  we  can  prove  beyond  all  cavil,  if  it  should  be  con- 
tested. His  societies  were  formed  within  that  Church,  for- 
the  purpose  of  combining  more  cflficiently  its  piety,  tod 
for  the  individual  happiness  of  the  membership,  without 
intending  that  they  should  leave  its  communion. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  his  individual  views  and 
feelings  in  this  respect,  certain  it  is,  that  he  had  not  the 
remotest  agency  in  foisting  upon  his  American  children 
the  Episcopal'feature  of  their  organization.  Nay,  it  was 
done  despite  his  known  views  and  most  solemn  remon- 
strances. This  we  shall  now  attempt  to  prove;  but  be- 
fore doing  so,  let  us  premise  that  we  shall  pursue  the 
main  thread  of  this  argument,  irrespective  of  all  impro- 
per issues  or  foreign  matter.  If  we  were  to  follow  Bro. 
Hamill,  we  know  not  whither  he  would  lead  us.  We 
shall,  therefore,  pursue  our  train  of  argument,  devoting 
only  such  portions  of  our  articles  to  his  communications 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  85 

as  may  be  essential  to  tlie  main  points  at  issue  between 
us.  We  shall  try  and  be  kind  to  his  person,  but  as  un- 
merciful to  "our  Episcopacy"  as  the  facts  in  the  case, 
and  our  powers  of  reasoning  will  allow.  Our  war  is 
not  upon  Methodists,  but  upon  their  Episcopacy.  We 
love  our  Methodist  brethren,  because  they  love  our  com- 
mon Lord,  and  have  exhibited  a  zeal  in  his  cause,  wor- 
thy of  all  praise;  but  we  repudiate  their  Episcopacy, 
because  it  is,  in  our  honest  judgment,  of  the  earth, 
earthy — it  deprives  a  Bible  constituency  of  their  religi- 
ous rights — and  is  in  direct  contravention  to  the  genius 
of  our  free  institutions,  so  far  as  it  can  mould  the  cha- 
racter and  habitudes  of  its  votaries  in  this  respect.  In 
the  hands  of  corrupt  men,  (and  who  shall  undertake  to 
say  that  such  men  may  never  wear  its  mitre?)  it  may 
stain  American,  as  it  has  already  crimsoned  European 
history,  wnth  crimes  of  the  deepest  die.  We  fight  the 
prindpk  which  concedes  such  power  to  any  men.  We 
claim  for  our  ascended  Lord,  the  supreme  legislative 
power  over  his  Church;  and  we  claim  for  that  Church 
the  authority  to  expound  and  apply  his  already  enacted 
law,  to  all  possible  circumstances  and  conditions,  times 
and  places. 

In  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
section  first,  it  is  affirmed  that,  as  Mr.  Wesley  "pre- 
ferred tlie  Episxopal  mode  of  Church  government  to  any 
other,  he  solemnly  set  apart,  by  the  imposition  of  his 
hands  and  prayer,  one  of  them,  viz.,  Thomas  Coke,  doc- 
tor of  civil  law,  late  of  Jesus  College,  University  of 
Oxford,  and  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  for  the 
Episcopal  office;  and  having  delivered  to  him  letters  of 


8G  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Episcopal  orders,  commissioned  and  directed  him  to  set 
apart  Francis  Asbuky,  then  general  assistant  of  the  Me- 
thodist Society  in  America,  for  the  same  Episcopal  office; 
he  the  said  Prancis  Asbdry  being  first  ordained  deacon 
and  elder."  Now,  it  may  seem  to  be  a  most  unwarrant- 
able assumption  on  our  part  to  question  a  declaration 
80  solemnly  set  forth  in  the  first  page  of  this  little  vol. 
ume,  containing  "  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  But  as  the  word  of  a 
bishop  or  clergyman  is  not  per  se,  infallible — as  they  are 
liable  to  be  mistaken  as  well  as  other  men — we  propose 
subjecting  this  statement  to  the  crucible  to  see  whether 
it  will  come  forth  as  "  gold  tried  in  the  fire." 

In  the  letter  of  ordination,  which  Mr.  Wesley  fur- 
nished to  Dr,  Coke,  there  is  not  the  most  distant  allu- 
sion to  the  office  of  bishop.  We  have  before  us  a  printed 
copy  of  this  document — declared  by  Mr.  Drew,  in  his 
life  of  Dr.  Coke,  to  be  a  "faithful  copy,  transcribed  from 
the  original,  in  Mr.  Weslejfs  own  hand  writing,  preserved 
among  the  papers  of  the  late  Dr.  Coke."  The  clause  in 
this  letter  which  defines  the  office  to  which  Dr.  Coke 
was  set  apart,  reads  as  follows: — "And  therefore,  under 
the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye 
to  his  glorj^,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  superinlenderit, 
by  the  imposition  of  ray  hands  and  prayers  [being  as- 
sisted by  other  ordained  ministers]  Thomas  Coke,  doc- 
tor of  civil  law,  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that 
great  work."  The  letter  is  dated  "  this  second  day  of 
September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  eighty-four,"  and  signed  JOHN  WESLEY. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  87 

"Why  it  is  that  this  "  letter  of  ordination"  has  never 
been  printed  with  the  minutes  of  conference,  or  inserted 
in  the  Discipline,  is  left  to  the  conjecture  of  the  reader. 
And  yet  it  is  the  very  document  on  which  the  bold  de- 
clarations are  made,  that  Mr.  Wesley  "preferred  the 
Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government" — that  he  set 
apart  Dr.  Coke  to  "  the  Episcopal  office"— and  that  he 
"  commissioned  him  to  set  apart  Francis  Asbury  .... 
for  the  same  Episcopal  office."  Or  if  there  is  any  other 
authority,  it  has  never  been  produced,  though  challeng- 
ed time  and  again. 

In  nOl,  that  is,  six  or  seven  years  after  he  vras  or- 
dained by  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Coke  addressed  a  letter  to 
Bishop  White,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  of- 
fering in  behalf  of  himself  and  Mr.  Wesley,  to  use  their 
"influence  to  the  utmost,"  which  "was  not  small,"  to 
transfer  "  above  60,000  adults  in"  the  "  society  in  these 
states  ;  and  about  250  travelling  ministers  and  preach- 
ers; besides  a  great  number  of  local  preachers,  very  far 
excelling  the  number  of  travelling  preachers,"  together 
with  the  "  congregations  in  these  states  amounting  to 
750,000,"  provided  Bishop  White  will  consecrate  him, 
Dr.  Coke,  bishop.  Now,  why  was  this  overture  made, 
if  he  had  already  been  "set  apart  by  the  imposition  of 
iiands  and  prayers"  "  to  the  Episcopal  office?"  Failing 
in  this  overture,  Dr.  Coke  made  a  similar  application  to 
the  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  about  eight  years  after- 
wards, declaring  that  "  our  numerous  societies  in  Am- 
erica would  have  been  a  regular  Presbyterian  Church, 
if  Mr.  Wesley  and  myself  had  not  taken  the  steps  which 
we  judged  it  necessary  to  adopt."     But  "  his  Lorship" 


88  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

would  not  "  impart  the  Holy  Ghost"  to  the  doctor,  and 
there,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  matter  ended.* 

But  we  have  evidence  direct  and  emphatic— such  as 
it  would  be  madness  in  any  sane  man  to  contest — that 
Mr.  Wesley  never  dreamed  while  he  was  setting  apart 
Dr.  Coke  to  the  office  of  superintendent,  that  that  cere- 
mony would  ever  be  metamoiT^hosed  into  an  "  Episcoj^al 
ordination,^'  as  the  Discipline  affirms.  Let  the  reader 
distinctly  observe  that  Dr.  Coke's  "  ordination  letter" 
bears  date  September  2d,  a.  d.  1784.  Four  years  after 
this,  as  the  reader  will  see  from  the  date,  Mr.  Wesley 
addressed  the  following  letter  to  Francis  Asbury,  whom, 
the  Discipline  declares  he  (Wesley)  deputed  Dr.  Coke 
to  ordain  to  the  "  Episcopal  office." 

"LoNDOxV,  Sept.  20th,  1188. 

There  is,  indeed,  a  wide  difference  between  the  rela- 
tion wherein  you  stand  to  the  xYraericans,  and  the  rela- 
tion wherein  I  stand  to  all  the  Methodists.  You  are  the 
elder  brother  of  the  American  Methodists;  I  am,  under 
God,  the  father  of  the  whole  family.  Therefore  I  natur- 
ally care  for  you  all,  in  a  manner  no  other  person  can 
do.  Therefore  I,  in  a  measure,  provide  for  you  all;  for 
the  supplies  which  Dr.  Coke  provides  for  you,  he  could 
not  provide  were  it  not  for  me — were  it  not  that  I  not 
only  permit  him  to  collect,  but  support  him  in  so  doing. 

But  in  one  point,  my  dear  brother,  I  am  a  little  afraid 
both  the  doctor  and  you  differ  from  me.  I  study  to  be 
little,  yon  study  to  be  ^rea^;  I  creep,  you  strut  along;  I 
found  a  school,  you  a  college — nay,  and  call  it  after  your 
own  names!  0  beware!  Do  not  cease  to  be  somethivg ! 
Let  me  be  nothing,  and  Christ  bo  all  in  all. 

One  instance  of  this  your  greatness,  has  given  me 
great  concern.    How  can  you,  how  dare  you  suffer  your- 

*  See  Appendix  B. 


^  METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  89 

eelf  to  be  called  a  lishopl  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the  very 
thought.  Men  may  call  vie  a  kvMve,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a 
scoundrel,  and  I  am  content;  but  they  shall  never,  by  my 
consent,  call  me  a  bishop!  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake, 
for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this!  Let  the  Presby- 
terians do  what  they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists 
know  their  calling-  better. 

Thus,  m}'-  dear  Franky,  I  have  told  you  all  that  is  in 
my  heart,  and  let  this,  when  I  am  no  more  seen,  bear 
witness  how  sincerely 

I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

JOHN  WESLEY." 

Now,  after  these  solemn  declarations  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  AVesley,  what  can  we  think  of  the  authorities  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  continuing  to  publish, 
in  every  impression  of  their  Discipline,  not  only  that  Mr. 
Wesley  "  preferred  the  Episcopal  form  of  their  Church 
goveiiiment,"  but  that  he  absolutely  did  ordaiu  Dr. 
Coke  to  the  "  Episcopal  office!"  These  are  historic  fads 
— we  simply  state  them,  and  leave  the  reader  to  make 
his  own  comments.  The  true  origin  of  Ejnscopacij,  as  an 
organic  element  in  Methodism,  as  developed  in  "  Lee's 
History  of  Methodism,"  is  this: 

"In  the  course  of  the  year  (1181,)  Mr.  Asbury  re- 
printed the  general  minutes,  but  in  a  different  form  from 
u-hat  they  were  before.  The  title  of  this  pamphlet  was  as 
follows: 

"A  Form  of  Discipline  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers, 
and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Ame- 
rica; considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference  held  at 
Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday  the  27th 


90  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

day  of  December,  1784,  in  which  the  Eev.  Thomas  Coke, 
LL.D.,  and  the  Rev.  Francis  Asb'ury,  presided.  Ar- 
ranged under  proper  heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more 
acceptable  manner." 

"This  was  the  first  time  that  our  superintendents  ever 
gave  themselves  the  title  of  bishops*  in  the  minutes.  They 
changed  the  title  themselves  without  the  consent  of  the  confer- 
ence; and  at  the  next  conference  they  asked  the  preach- 
ers if  the  word  bishojp  might  stand  in  the  minutes,  seeing 
it  was  a  scriptural  name,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word 
bishop  was  the  same  with  that  of  superintendent. 

"  Some  of  the  preachers  opposed  the  alteration  and 
wished  to  retain  the  former  title,  but  a  majority  of  the 
preachers  wished  to  let  the  word  bishop  remain." — Lee^s 
History  of  Methodism,  page  128. 

The  above  will  account  for  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr. 
Asbury,  in  1788,  the  year  after  the  title  of  bishop  was 
assumed  instead  of  superintendent,  in  which  he  says 
"  Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a,  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel, 
and  I  am  content;  but  they  shall  never,  by  my  consent, 
call  me  a  bishop!  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for 
Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this!" 

Now,  let  the  reader  observe,  that  the  next  year  after 
Mr.  Wesley  wrote  this  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  the  very 
first  question  and  answer  on  the  minutes  of  Conference 
are  the  following: 

"  Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise  the  Episcopal  office 
in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America? 

*  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  as  soon  as  Mr.  Wesley's  name 
was  left  out  of  the  minutes,  the  term  bishop  was  introduced  into 
them. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  91 

"  Ans.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury." 
It  is  fair  to  presume  that  Mr.  Asbury  had  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's letter  at  the  time  he  and  Dr.  Coke  were  presiding 
at  the  Conference  of  1189;  for  in  his  Journal,  vol.  ii.  p. 
45,  we  find  the  following  entry: 

"1189. — South  Carolina,  March  15th.  We  reached 
the  city,  having  rode  two  hundred  miles  in  about  five 
days  and  two  hours.  Here  I  received  a  hitter  pill  from 
one  of  my  greatest  friends."  We  suppose  this  "  bitter 
pill"  was  the  above  letter.  Now  what  right  had  Messrs. 
Coke  and  Asbury  and  the  American  Conference  to  con- 
nect the  name  of  John  Wesley  with  a  title  against  which 
he  had  protested  in  such  unmeasured  terms — a  title,  ra- 
ther than  wear  which,  he  would  choose  to  be  called 
"  a  knave,  a  fool,  a  rascal,  or  a  scoundrel?"  It  was 
certainly  due  the  old  man,  that  his  name  should  not 
be  mentioned  in  any  such  connection.  If  they  were  de- 
termined to  adopt  the  Episcopal  form  of  government,  it 
was  obviously  incumbent  on  them  to  have  taken  the  re- 
sponsibility on  themselves,  and  allowed  their  minutes  to 
speak  the  truth.  But,  instead  of  this,  the  letter  was 
suppressed,  and  its  contents,  so  far  as  they  were  con- 
cerned, never  would  have  seen  the  light  of  day.  Nay, 
the  first  thing  done  at  the  Conference  next  preceding 
the  reception  of  this  letter,  was,  solemnly  and  before 
God,  to  publish  to  the  world  the  name  of  Johk  Wesley 
as  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Cliurch!  "Ilis  name  was 
used,"  says  the  Rev.  Mr.  McCaine,  who  was  thirty  years 
an  eld(?r  in  that  Church,  "  to  give  a  degree  of  sanction 
to  their  measures,  which  it  was  thought  would  disarm 
resistance,  if  any  were  offered;  and  by  this  means  was 


92  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

an  Episcopal  government  established;  the  name  of  John 
Wesley  being;  offered  as  a  passport  to  all  the  contem- 
plated ecclesiastical  honors." 

Now,  let  us  apply  the  foregoing  facts  to  our  argu- 
ment. The  "  Discipline"  alleges  that  Mr.  "Wesley  "  pre- 
ferred the  Episcopal  form  of  government," — Mr.  Wesley 
solemnly  protests  that  he  had  rather  be  called  "  a 
knave,  a  fool,  a  rascal,  or  a  scoundrel,"  than  to  be  called 
hishop!  The  "Discipline"  declares  that  he  ordained  Dr. 
Coke  to  the  "  Episcopal  office^^ — neither  the  word  Episco- 
pal nor  hishop  occurs  in  the  ordination  letter.  The  "Dis- 
cipline" avers  that  he  commissioned  Dr.  Coke  to  ordain 
Francis  Asbury  to  the  "  same  Episcopal  office" — four 
years  after  the  date  of  said  letter  of  ordination,  he 
(Wesley)  writes  to  Mr.  Asbury,  "  For  my  sake,  for 
God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to  this"— 
["  suffering  yourself  to  be  called  a  hishop."']  The  "  Dis- 
cipline" affirms  that  the  Episcopal  mode  of  government 
was  adopted  in  1*184,  the  year  on  which  it  is  assumed  Dr. 
Coke  appeared  in  America  with  letters  of  Episcopal  au- 
thority from  Mr.  Wesley — and  yet  seven  years  after 
this,  to-wit,  in  1791,  Dr.  Coke  applied  to  Bishop  White 
for  ordination  to  that  office;  and  in  1799,  he  made  a  si- 
milar application  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London — that  is, 
he  made  two  unsuccessful  efforts  to  be  ordained  to  the 
office  of  bishop,  after  both  the  "  Discipline"  and  the 
Minutes  of  Conference  solemnly  declare  that  he  was'  a 
bishop!  What  a  pity  the  holy  link  in  the  succession 
could  not  have  been  supplied  1  What  an  awful  disaster, 
that  in  attempting  to  stretch  it  across  the  ocean,  the 
mystic  chain  snapped  asunder! 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY. 


93 


Suppose  we  place  two  or  three  of  these  documents  in 
juxtaposition,   and  see  how  beautifully  they  will  har- 


monize: 


Look  at  this: 
Discipline,  pages  1-2. 

"As  he  (Mr.  Wesley)  preferred 
the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church 
governmcat  to  any  other,  he  so- 
lemnly set  apart,  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  his  hands  and  prayers, 
one  of  them,  viz:  Thomas  Coke, 
doctor  of  civil  law,  late  of  Jesus 
College,  in  the  University  of 
Oxford,  and  a  Presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England,  for  the  Epis- 
copal office;  and  having  delivered 
to  him  letters  of  Episcopal  orders, 
commissioned  and  directed  him 
to  sat  apart  Francis  Asbury, 
then  general  assistant  of  the  Me- 
thodist Society  in  America,  for 
the  same  Episcopal  office,"  &c. 

Minutes  of  Confei'ence  for 
1789. 

"Who  are  the  persons  that 
exercise  the  Episccpal  office  in  the 
Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and 
America? 

"Ans.  John  Wesley,  Thomas 
Coke,  Francis  Asbury." 


And  then  at  this: 
Extract  from  Mr.  Wesley's  let- 
ter to  Mr.  Asbury,  dated 

"  London,  Sept.  20,  1788. 

*  *  *  *  One  instance  of  this 

your  greatness  gives  me  great 

concern.  How  can  you,  how  dare 

you  suffer  yourself  to  be  called 

bishop?     I  SHUDDER,  I  START  at  the 

■very' thought.  Men  may  call  me  a 
knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoun- 
drel, and  I  am  content;  but  they 
shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call 
me  a  bishop!  For  my  salie,  for 
God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put 
a  full  end  to  this."  *  *  *  * 

I  am  your  affectionate  friend 
and  brother, 

JOHN  WESLEY." 


But  if  we  should  be  considered  uncharitable  in  doubt- 
inj^  the  authority  of  a  fact  which  constitutes  the  foun- 
dation stone  of  the  Methodist  polity — if  the  members  of 
that  communion  should  feel  "  grieved  and  insulted"  as 


94  '  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

some  political  editors  say,  that  we  should  not  exercise 
implicit  faith  in  declarations  solemnly  made  by  the  au- 
thorities of  that  Church  just  as  often  as  there  are  im- 
pressions in  the  "  Discipline"  now  extant — we  beg  to 
summon  to  our  rescue  a  man  whom  they  will  hear — 
the  late  Bishop  Bascom.  In  Dr.  Bond's  Economy  of  Me- 
thodism, he  quotes  Dr.  Bascom  as  saying,  "  But  Mr. 
Wesley  seems  not  to  have  contemplated  an  Episcopacy 
in  any  shape.  It  is,  to  be  sure,  asserted  in  the  Preface 
tp  our  Book  of  Discipline;  but  the  oldest  preachers  in 
the  United  States,  with  whom  I  have  conversed  and 
corresponded  on  this  subject,  n^rer  saw  ike  warrant.  It 
has  been  called  for  by  friends  and  foes  for  thirty  years, 
hut  it  is  not  yet  forthcoming.      If  such  warrant  exists, 

why  is  it  that  we  can  learn  nothing  of  itl But 

until  such  warrant  or  document  from  Mr.  Wesley  be 
procured,  1,  as  an  individual,  'must  of  necessity,  continue  to 
douht  the  historical  probity  of  the  Preface  of  our  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, in  relation  to  this  particular." — Economy  of  Me- 
thodism, p.  114. 

We  claim,  then,  that  Bishop  Bascom  shall  share  equal- 
ly with  us  the  odium  of  this  incredulit3^  If  a  Baptist 
editor  commits  an  unpardonable  ofience  in  "doubting 
the  historical  probity  of  the  Pretace  of  our  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline," it  is  not  a  little  consoling  to  him  to  know  that 
a  Methodist  bishop — the  eloquent  Bascom — is  equally  con- 
demned with  him  to  endure  the  bitter  penalty  of  that 
terrible  offence. 

And  here  we  must  pause  in  this  argument,  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  our  respects  to  Brother  Hamill's  third 
letter. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  95 

And  first,  the  reader  will  observe  a  most  beautiful 
coDgruity  between  the  caption  of  his  article,  "  Method- 
ism, like  its  Creed — peace  and  good  will  to  man,"  and 
the  passage  of  Scripture  he  ha^  chosen  for  a  motto — 
"  Presumptuous  are  they,  self-willed,  they  arc  not  afraid 
to  speak  evil  of  dignities."  The  amiable  spirit — the 
"  peace  and  good-will  to  man"  of  Methodism,  consists, 
then,  in  denouncing  those  who  question  the  right  of 
bishops  and  clergy  to  legislate  for  the  Churches,  as 
"  presumptuous,  self-willed — not  afraid  to  speak  evil  of 
dignities."  That  is  to  say,  if  any  person  see  proper  to 
suggest  that  it  would  be  more  in  accordance  M'ith  the 
genius  of  our  free  institutions,  for  the  governed  to  have 
some  voice  in  the  government — that  power,  whether 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  in  the  hands  of  an  exclusive  class 
of  men,  irresponsible  to  any  other  power  for  its  exer- 
cise, naturally  tends  to  accumulation  and  corruption — 
he  must  be  classed  with  those  to  whom  Peter  refers  in 
this  passage,  to-wit:  "Those  who  walk  after  the  flesh 
in  the  lust  of  uncleanness,  and  despise  government." 
Of  course,  Brother  Haraill  designs  this  application  of 
the  passage,  or  he  would  not  prefix  it  to  his  article. 

Our  brother  seems  to  be  a  little  out  of  temper.  We 
said  in  our  former  article,  that  v/e  should  rule  out  every- 
thing foreign  in  this  discussion.  He  understands  us  as 
meaning  that  we  would  mutilate  his  manuscripts  to 
suit  our  views  of  relevancy.  Not  so  fast,  Bro.  Ilamill. 
We  simply  meant  that,  according  to  the  common  rules 
of  debate,  you  had  no  moral  right  to  introduce  foreign 
matters;  and  that  if  you  did,  it  was  not  incumbent  on 
us  to  leave  the  main  question  under  discussion,  and  fol- 
low all  your  aberrations  from  the  point  or  points  at  is- 


96  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

sue  between  us.  Your  resiiveness  on  this  subject  furnishes 
an  impressive  illustration  of  the  fact,  that  Methodist 
clergymen  brook  no  sort  of  control  when  engaged  with 
an  alien,  or,  as  your  motto  suggests,  "  the  presumptu- 
ous and  self-willed."  Go  on,  brother.  Whatever  you 
write,  whether  it  be  on  that  horrible  practice  of  "  close 
communion,"  or  the  "  Munster  insurrectionists,"  or,  if 
you  should  choose  to  give  us  your  views  of  "  Mormonism" 
as  Brother  Ferguson  *  has  done,  (see  last  paper)  we 
will  print  it  all,  without  the  "  displacement  of  a  single 
word."  All  we  have  to  say  is,  that  we  do  not  exactly  see 
the  pertinancy  cf  such  topics  to  the  subject  we  are  discussing. 

You  charge  us  with  endorsing  the  following  odious 
articles  from  the  "Watchman:"  "  Methodist  Episco- 
pacy is  a  foe  to  human  rights:"  the  very  point  we  are 
discussing,  Brother  Hamill.  How  could  we  take  the 
ground  that  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  anti-Republican, 
without  regarding  it  as  a  "foe  to  human  rights?"  Fur- 
ther, that  "  it  exerts  a  paralyzing  influence  over  freedom 
of  thought" — if  suspension  and  expulsion  from  your 
Church  for  discussing  "  the  mutual  rights  of  ministers 
and  members  paralyzes  freedom  of  thought,"  we  humbly 
submit  that  we  have  proved  this  beyond  the  possibility 
of  a  cavil.  "  It  has  imposed  articles  of  faith  upon  the 
people,  without  their  consent."  Yes,  sir,  it  has.  Where 
and  when  have  the  local  ministers  and  private  members 
of  your  Church,  individually  or  collectively,  in  their  own 
persons  or  by  representative's,  delegated  the  right  to 
your  bishops  and  travelling  preachers,  to  "  impose  ar- 
ticles of  faith"  upon  them?     If  such  right  ever  has  been 

*  See  Appendix  D. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  91 

conceded,  it  can  be  proved.  "  Methodists  degrade  them- 
selves by  submission  to  bishops,  in  regard  to  Church 
property,  more  than  Roman  Catholics."  The  famous 
suit  brought  by  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  recover  their  proportion  of  funds  in 
the  "  Book  Concern/'  was  decided  by  our  civil  authori- 
ties on  the  ground,  that  the  property  of  the  Church  vest- 
ed in  its  bishops  and  clergy;  whereas  Catholic  congre- 
g-ations  have  contested  this  very  point  before  the  same 
tribunal  with  success.  This  we  will  either  prove  or  re- 
tract. "  Our  bishops  control  our  public  moneys  and 
buildings."  The  writer  in  the  Watchman  asks  and  ans- 
wers thus:  "Who  holds  the  deeds  for  every  inch  of 
ground,  and  every  Episcopal  Methodist  Church  in  the 
land?  The  Conferzna,  alias  the  hishopsP  Will  Brother 
Hamill  deny  this?  If  so,  the  proof  is  at  hand  to  any 
amoun-t.  Finally,  the  bishops  "  can  control  the  sufifrages 
of  our  members,"  &c.  This  is  not  stated  as  a  fact,  but 
as  a  proposition  to  be  argued  from  facts.  And  whether 
the  writer  proved  it  or  not,  is  left  to  the  judgment  of 
the  reader.  Brother  Ilamill  is  the  last  man  on  earth 
who  ought  to  charge  us  with  "  twisting  in  and  twisting 
out." 

After  we  had  extended  to  Brother  Ilamill  all  the  cour- 
tesy he  asked — allowing  him,  nay  welcoming  him,  to 
the  unrestricted  use  of  our  columns,  a  privilege  that 
wo  still  accord  to  him — and  in  all  our  allusions  to  him, 
using  terms  of  the  utmost  respect — we  say,  after  all 
this,  judge  of  our  surprise  at  the  following  declaration: 
"  Of  what  you  allege  against  Methodism,  I  must  ddiher- 
ately  say  to  you,  they  are  all  and  each  of  them,  utterly 
FALSE.  For  proof,  sec  my  first  article,  which  you  have 
9 


98  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

barely  deigned  to  notice."     We  had  hoped,  Bro.  Hamill, 
that  you  were  a  stranger  to  Grub-street  vernacular — 
that  your  Bro.  Ferguson,  had  monopolized  that  depart- 
ment "of  our    Episcopacy."      What  we   have   alleged 
against  Methodism  is  "utterly  falsk!"— is  it?     Let  us 
see.     We  have  said  that  the  Annual  and  Quadrennial  - 
Conferences  of    the  Methodist   Episcopal    Church   are 
composed,  ex  officio,  of  the  bishops  and  travelling  cler- 
gy; that  neither  local  preachers  nor  private  members  ' 
have  any  voice  in  their  deliberations;  that  the  basis  of 
representation  in  the  General  Conference  is  not  the  nu- 
merical strength  of  the  membership  of  the  Churches,  but 
of  the  travelling  preachers ;  that  this  distinct  feature  of 
Methodism  is  never  to  be  changed,  since  the  "  fathers  of 
the  Church  have  taken  the  pains  to  throw  around  it  the 
sanctity  of  an  irrevocable  decree;"  that  in  neither  the 
legislative,  executive,  or  judicial  departments  of  govern- 
ment in  your  Cliurch,  have  the  laity  auy  representative; 
that  Methodist  Episcopacy  deprives  the  membership  of 
the  Methodist  Church  of  the  right  to  choose  their  own 
pastors—  a  right  as  dear  to  the  "  Lord's  freed  men"  as 
any  other  he  has  conferred;  that  Mr.  Wesley,  the  father 
of  Methodism,  after  spending  a  portion  of  his  time  among 
our  Colonies,-bcfore  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  acquir- 
ing a  commanding  influence  among  them,  on  account  of 
his  talents  and  piety,  threw  the  whole  weight  of  that 
influence  against  our  struggle  for  national  independence, 
and  declared  on  the  part  of  himself  and  friends,  many 
years  after  the  war  was  ended— "We  are  no  Eepubli- 
cans,   and  never   intend   to   be;"  that   several  of  his 
preachers  had  to  flee  the  country  during  that  war,  on 
account  of  their  Tory  principles,  and  that  Mr.  Asbury, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  99 

the  first  Methodist  bishop  ordained  in  America,  had  to 
conceal  himself  from  the  popular  fury  for  the  same  rea- 
son; that  large  numbers  of  official  and  private  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  were  suspended  and 
expelled  for  promoting  a  movement  in  that  Church,  to 
incorporate  into  its  polity  the  great  REPRESENTA- 
TIVE idea  of  our  civil  government;  that  a  respectful 
petition  was  presented  to  the  General  Conference,  in 
1824,  praying  "  that  the  government  of  the  Church  might 
be  made  representative,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the 
mutual  rights  of  the  ministers  and  people,"  and  that  the 
petition  was-met  by  the  stern  rebuke  of  the  bishops, — 
"  Pardon  us  if  we  know  no  such  rights,  if  ice  comprehend  no 
such  privileges-/^  we  say  these  are  substantially  the  points 
we  had  "  alleged  against  Methodism,"  up  to  the  time 
Brother  Haraill  wrote  his  present  article.  ARE  THEY 
"  UTTERLY  FALSE  ?"  But  perhaps  we  have  mistaken 
the  punctuation  of  our  brother;  perhaps  he  designs  the 
charge  to  refer  only  to  the  article  from  the  "  Watch- 
man." If  so,  the  reader  can  judge,  after  reading  both 
articles,  how  far  the  writer  of  that  article  has  been  con- 
victed of  falsehood.        — 

We  are  not  defending  Brother  Graves — he  is  able  to 
do  that  himself — but  discussing  Metliodist  Episcopacy. 
We  must,  therefore,  wait  until  our  brother  returns  from 
chasing  the  "  great  iron  wheel." 

^  We  said  that  ecclesiastical  power  had  been  invoked 
by  secular  princes,  to  establish  and  perpetuate  their 
thrones — as  well  as  to  carry  out  some  of  their  basest 
purposes — and  lo!  Brother  Hamill  asks,  "Did  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Alexander,  Tiberius,  the  Sultan,  &c.  &c. 
&c.,  owe  their  thrones  to — American  Methodism?"     Not 


100  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

at  all.     True,  we  used  to  hear  a  long  metre  hymn  in 
our  boyish  days,  one  stanza  of  which  ran  thus  : 

"  The  world,  the  Calvinists,  and  Paine, 
May  hate  the  Methodists  in  vain; 
Their  doctrines  shall  be  downward  hurled. 
The  Methodists  will  take  the  uorld." 

But  we  never  dreamed  that  Methodism  reached  quite 
so  far  back  into  antiquity  as  Nebuchadnezzar.  True, 
we  are  aware  that  that  renowned  king  became  quite 
orthodox  once,  and  because  some  of  his  subjects  chose 
to  worship  God  contrary  to  the  royal  "  ritual,"  "know- 
ing no  such  right,  and  comprehending  no  such  privi- 
lege," he  dealt  with  them  after  the  true  spirit  of  Epis- 
copacy, as  exhibited  in  the  Romish  and  English  Churches. 
Perhaps  it  was  some  such  association  of  ideas  as  this 
that  brought  up  the  image  of  this  Babylonish  monarch 
to  our  brother's  fruitful  imagination. 

The  difference  between  John  Wesley  and  Robert 
Hall,  was  this:  Mr,  Wesley  sent  out  "  superintendents'' 
and  Missionaries,  inimical  to  our  cause,  and  visited  in 
person  our  Colonies,  and  then  used  the  influence  thus  ob- 
tained, against  our  struggle  with  Great  Britain  for  inde- 
pendence. Robert  Hall  never  did  this.  His  politicail 
tracts  show  what  his  sympathies  were.  But  Mr.  Wes- 
ley "judged  it  best  that"  we  "  should  stand  fast  in  that 
liberty  wherewith  God  had  so  strangely  set  us  free!" 
Very  " nobly  spoken"  indeed  1  "God  has  made  them 
free,"  despite  Mr.  Wesley's  efforts  to  the  contrary.  And 
then  it  was  "50  strangely'^  done!  If  the  good  old  man 
conld  only  have  "  known  the  rights  and  comprehended 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  101 

the  privileges"  for  wliich  we  were  contending,  perhaps 
it  would  not  have  been  so  strange  after  all.* 

But  then  the  Methodists  presented  a  congratulatory 
address  to  General  Washington,  on  his  accession  to  the 
Presidency.  This  was  quite  patriotic;  but  not  more 
so  than  -similar  addresses  from  other  religious  bodies, 
two  of  whom  were  before  them,  if  Jared  Sparks  is 
right  in  the  arrangement  of  the  Washington  papers. 
But  if  our  brother  dwells  with  so  much  rapture  upon 
the  General's  resi^onse  to  this  address,  in  which  he  "im- 
plored the  divine  benediction  on"  their  "  religious  com- 
munity," into  what  ecstacies  would  it  have  thrown  him, 
if  he  had  read  in  that  response  the  following:  "While 
I  recollect  with  satisfaction  that  the  religious  society  of 
which  you  are  members,  have  been,  throughout  America, 
uniformly'  and  almost  unanimously,  the  firm  friends  to 
civil  liberty,  and  the  persevering  promoters  of  our  glo- 
rious Revolution,  I  cannot  hesitate  to  believe  that  they 
will  be  the  faithful  supporters  of  a  free  yet  efficient  gen- 
eral government. "f     Yet  this  was  in  his  response  to  a 

•  See  Appendix  A. 

t  On  the  accessiou  of  Geacral  "Washington  to  the  Presidency  of 
the  United  States,  the  various  religious  denomiaations  of  the  country, 
in  connection  with  other  bodies,  presented  congratulatory  addresses 
to  him,  to  whicli  he  uniformly  responded  in  respectful  terms.  The 
following  are  his  answers  "  to  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  United  States,"  and  "  to  the  General  Committee 
representing  the  United  Baptist  Churches  in  Virginia."  They  are 
extracted  from  "The  Writings  of  Washington,''-  vol.  xii,  pp.  153-155. 

"  To  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Ejnscopal  Church 

in  the  Unilul  Stales.— Miiy,  1789. 
"  Gkn"ti-eme\: — I  return  to  you  individually,  and,  through  you.  to 
your  Society  collectively  in  the  United  States,  my  thanks  for  the 


102  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

similar  "congratulatory  address"  from  the  Baptists. 
But  we  shall  make  no  invidious  comparisons. 

The  Munster  affair,  of  Germany,  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, is  also  dragged  into  this  discussion.     It  is  done 

demonstrations  of  affection  and  the  expressions  of  joy,  offered  in 
their  behalf,  on  my  late  appointment.  It  shall  still  be  my  endeavor 
to  manifest,  by  overt  acts,  the  purity  of  my  inclinations  for  promot- 
ing the  happiness  of  mankind,  as  well  as  the  sincerity  of  my  desires 
to  contribute  whatever  may  be  in  my  power  towards  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  the  American  people.  In 
pursuing  this  line  of  conduct,  I  hope,  by  the  assistance  of  Divine 
providence,  not  altogether  to  disappoint  the  confidence  which  you 
have  been  pleased  to  repose  in  me. 

"It  always  affords  me  satisfaction,  when  I  find  a  concurrence  in 
eentiment  and  practice  between  all  conscientious  men  in  acknowl- 
edgments of  homage  to  the  great  Governor  of  the  Universe,  and  in 
professions  of  support  to  a  just  civil  government.  After  mentioning 
that  I  trust  the  people  of  every  denomination,  who  demean  them- 
selves as  good  citizens,  will  have  occasion  to  be  convinced  that  I 
shall  always  strive  to  prove  a  faithful  and  impartial  patron  of  gen- 
uine, vital  religion,  I  must  assure  you  in  particular,  that  I  take  in 
the  kindest  part,  the  promise  you  make  of  presenting  your  prayers 
at  the  throne  of  grace  for  me,  and  that  I  likewise  implore  the  Di- 
vine benediction  oa  yourselves  and  your  religious  community. 

GEORGE  WASHINGTON." 


"  To  the  General  Committee,  representing  the 

United  Baptist  Churches  in  Virginia.-— "Mnj,  1789. 

"  Gkntlemen: — I  request  that  you  will  accept  my  best  acknowl- 
edgments for  your  congratulation  on  my  appointment  to  the  first 
oflBce  in  the  nation.  The  kind  manner  in  which  you  mention  my 
past  conduct  equally  claims  the  expression  of  gratitude. 

"After  we  had,  by  the  smiles  of  heaven  on  our  exertions,  obtained 
the  object  for  which  we  contended,  I  retired,  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  war,  with  an  idea  that  my  country  could  have  no  further  occa- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  103 

with  many  palliations  and  qualifications — but  still  it  is 
done.  We  intend  to  notice  this  at  a  proper  time;  but 
as  it  is  not  vitally  connected  with  Methodist  Episcopacy, 
we  dismiss  it  for  the  present.* 

sion  for  my  services,  and  with  the  intention  of  never  again  entering 
into  public  life;  but,  when  the  exigencies  of  my  country  seemed  to 
require  me  once  more  to  engage  in  public  affairs,  an  honest  convic- 
tion of  my  duty  superseded  my  former  resolution,  and  became  my 
apology  for  deviating  from  ihe  happy  plan  which  I  bad  adopted. 

"  If  I  could  have  entertained  the  slightest  apprehension,  that  the 
constitution  formed  in  the  convention,  where  I  had  the  honor  to 
preside,  might  possibly  endanger  the  religious  rights  of  any  ecclesi- 
astical society,  certainly  I  would  never  have  placed  my  signature 
to  it;  and  if  I  could  now  conceive  that  the  general  government 
might  ever  be  so  administered  as  to  render  the  liberty  of  conscience 
insecure,  I  beg  you  will  be  persuaded,  that  no  one  would  be  more 
zealous  than  myself  to  establish  effectual  barriers  against  the  hor- 
rors of  spiritual  tyranny,  and  every  species  of  religious  perseoution. 
For  you  doubtless  remember,  that  I  have  often  expressed  my  senti- 
ments, that  ever}'  man,  conducting  himself  as  a  good  citizen,  and 
being  accountable  to  God  alone,  for  his  religious  opinions,  ought  to 
be  protected  in  worshiping  the  Deity  according  to  the  dictates  of 
his  own  conscience. 

"  While  I  recollect  with  satisfaction,  that  the  religious  society  of 
which  you  are  members  have  been,  throughout  America,  uniformly 
and  almost  unanimously  the  firm  friends  to  civil  liberty,  and  the 
persevering  promoters  of  our  glorious  revolution,  I  cannot  hesitate 
to  believe,  that  they  will  be  the  faithful  supporters  of  a  free,  yet 
efficient  general  government.  Under  this  pleasing  ex^pectation,  I 
rejoice  to  assure  them,  that  they  may  rely  on  my  best  wishes  and 
endeavors  to  advance  their  prosperity. 

*•*  In  the  meantime  be  assured,  gentlemen,  that  I  entertain  a  pro- 
per sense  of  your  fervent  supplications  to  God  for  my  temporal  and 

eternal  happincHs. 

GEORGE  WASniNGTON." 

•  Pec  Appendix  C. 


104  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

As  Brother  Hamill  persists  in  confounding  Methodist 
with  Bible  Episcopacy,  we  shall  devote  an  article  to 
that  subject  at  an  early  day.  We  must  correct  an  er- 
roneous impression  on  our  brother's  mind,  in  regard  to 
a  question  or  two  we  asked:  "  In  the  Methodist  polity, 
does  the  Holy  Ghost  or  the  bishops  appoint  the  over- 
seers? Or  are  bishop  and  Holy  Ghost  identical  terms?" 
"Ah!"  exclaims  our  brother,  "  that  was  the  unkindest 
cut  of  all  1"  Now,  God  forbid  that  we  should  speak  un- 
kindly of  any  one,  more  especially  of  a  New  Testament 
bishop.  We  reverence  such  a  man  wherever  we  see 
him.  Paul  has  described  him  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus — portions  of  holy  writ  which  have  been  the 
themes  for  ordination  services  among  most  Protestants, 
time  out  of  mind.  Such  a  minister  we  honor,  no  matter 
to  what  denomination  he  belongs.  But  when  even  a 
good  man  thrusts  himself,  or  permits  others  to  thrust 
him  into  a  position  not  of  God's  bidding;  when  man 
shall  attempt  to  create  a  "  dignitary"  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  higher  in  authority  than  either  the  Church  or 
those  whom  the*  Holy  Ghost  has  made  bishops-'^  who 
assumes  the  prerogative  "  to  change,  receive,  and  sus- 
pend preachers  as  necessity  may  require,  and  as  the 
Discipline  directs;  to  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preach- 
ers for  the  several  circuits;  to  oversee  the  spiritual  and 
TEMPORAL  business  of  the  Church;  to  hear  and  decide  ap- 
peals of  the  quarterly  meeting  Conferences,  on  questions 
of  law;  to  choose  the  presiding  elders,  to  fix  their  sta- 
tions, and  to  change  them  when  he  judges  it  necessary," 
&c.  &c.;  we  say,  when  such  a  dignitary  is  obtruded  into 
the  sacred  precincts  of  Zion — "  lording  it  over  God's 
clergy,"  (for  that  is  the  signification  of  kleros  in  Greek, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  105 

and  so  old  WickliflFe  translated  it,) — it  is  not  "  unJcind'^ 
in  us  to  rebuke  the  intruder,  even  if  we  should  use  the 
stern  language  of  Virgil's  priest. 

"  Procul  hinc !  procul  este,  profani, 
*     *     *    Totoque  absistite  luco !" 

Is  it  not  true  that  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  appoint  the  "  overseers"  in  that  Church? 
Is  it  not  true  that  in  the  New  Testament  cconomj^,  Paul 
affirms  that  the  Holy  Ghost  appoints  these  "  overseers?" 
And  when  man  assumes  the  prerogatives  of  that  Spirit, 
the  inquiry  is  pertinent,  whether  such  authority  is  iden- 
tical with  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

As  Brother  Hamill  still  maintains  that  there  are  but 
two  orders  of  clergy  in  his  Church,  we  quote  two  others 
of  his  Church  authorities  on  that  subject.  Drs.  Emory 
and  Bangs,  in  "  Buck's  Theological  Dictionary,"  say — 
"  THREE  ORDERS  of  ministers  ARE  recognized,  and 
the  duties  peculiar  to  each  are  clearly  defined."  We 
suppose  these  eminent  doctors,  when%riting  an  article 
for  a  standard  work,  which  was  intended  to  give  a 
faithful  account  of  what  Methodism  is,  would  not  be 
likely  to  have  mistaken  iioo  for  three. 

But  now  "  comes  the  tug  of  war."  Brother  Hamill 
says — "It  now  becomes  my  painful  duty  to  correct  a 
whole  series  of  the  most  palpable  misrepresentations  of  facts 
I  have  ever  known  made  by  an  educated  and  respecta- 
ble niiuister."  And  then,  after  convicting  us  to  his  own 
entire  satisfaction,  concludes  by  making  the  following 
very  modest  and  delicate  demand:  "  I  now  formally  dc 
mand  (.')  of  you,"  (Episcopal  to  the  core!)  "  as  an  hoi  - 


106  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

est  man,  a  solemn  and  unqualified  retractioB  of  your  glar- 
ing errors  in  the  points  specified  I" 

On  reading  this,  we  really  felt  our  humble  self  in  the 
predicament  of  an  old  poet: 

"  To  laugh  were  waut  of  goodness  and  of  grace; 
And  to  be  grave,  exceeds  all  power  of  face." 

The  "  points"  we  suggested  are  these  :  That  in  the 
English  Church,  the  powers  of  government  are  in  the 
hands  of  the  clergy;  that  the  power  of  ordination  is 
vested  in  the  hands  of  its  bishops;  that  the  right  of 
supplying  the  Churches  with  pastors,  was  in  the  same 
hands;  that  in  her  ecclesiastical  councils,  (chapters 
they  are  called)  the  laity  are  not  represented;  that  the 
revenues  of  the  Church,  collected  from  the  people,  pass 
beyond  their  constitutional  control  into  the  hands  of  its 
rulers;  and  that  the  right  of  suffrage  is  denied  to  its 
private  members.  All  these,  with  a  single  exception, 
as  they  relate  to  the  Church  of  England,  are  ^^  palpable 
misrepresentations  c^  factsP'  Then  the  converse  of  each 
one  of  them,  except  one,  is  true!  Let  us  see  how  they 
will  sound.  In  the  Church  of  England,  the  powers  of 
government  ai'c  not  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy,  i.  e.  it 
is  not  Episcopacy,  since  Episcopacy  means,  according 
to  Webster,  (pardon  us,  brother,  for  introducing  Web- 
ster again,  if  you  please,  as  it  is  a  prevailing  opinion 
that  he  is  competent  to  define  a  common  English  word,) 
"  the  government  of  the  Church  by  bishops  or  prelates." 
That  the  right  of  supplying  the  Churches  with  pastors 
is  NOT  in  Episcopal  hands — then  the  Churches  have  a 
right  to  choose  their  own  pastors  1     True,  the  Crown, 


m 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  lOT 

the  lords  of  the  manor  throughout  the  realm,  ecclesias- 
tical corporations,  dignitaries,  and  college  Churches,  as 
by  constitutional  law,  oflScially  connected  with  "the 
Church,"  have  the  right  to  nominate  persons  to  the  va- 
rious benefices  within  their  several  jurisdictions;  but 
the  confirviaiion  of  these  nominations  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  bishops.  So  we  understand  the  following,  from  the 
Encyclopaedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  Art.  Episcopacy. 
"  The  jurisdiction  of  a  bishop,  in  England,  consists  in 
collatiug  to  benefices,"  (presenting  to  benefices,)"  grant- 
ing institutions  on  the  PRESEJsrTATioN  of  other  patrons; 
commanding  induction;  taking  care  of  the  profits  of  va- 
cant benefices  for  the  use  of  the  successors,"  &c. 

Now,  if  we  can  understand  the  language  of  Episco- 
pacy, (though,  no  very  great  adept  in  the  "speech  of 
Ashdod,")  the  above  clearly  shows,  that  an  appointment 
to  a  benefice  by  "  other  patrons"  must  be  confirmed  by 
a  bishop  before  the  appointee  can  legally  enter  upon 
his  office.  And  moreover,  the  point  we  were,  seeking  to 
establish  was,  that  the  Churches,  as  such,  in  the  estab- 
lishment, had  no  right  to  choose  their  pastors.  It  would 
seem  that  it  was  impossible  for  our  brother  to  have 
mistaken  our  meaning.  But  to  proceed  with  the  "points 
specified."  In  the  ecclesiastical  councils  of  the  English 
Church  the  laity  are  represented!  That  is,  Episcopacy, 
is  not  Episcopacy  1  "A  dean  and  chapter,"  says  Buck,  "are 
the  bishop's  council,  to  assist  him  in  the  afl'airs  of  reli- 
gion;"— a  "dean  presides  over  at  least  ten  canons  or 
prebendaries;"  a  chapter  is  "a  community  of  ecclesi- 
astics belonging  to  a  Cathedral  or  college  Church." 
The  revenues  of  the  Church,  collected  from  the  people, 


108  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

do  NOT  pass  beyond  their  constitutional  control,  notwith- 
standing, Mr.  Noel's  averment  that  "  all  persons  holding 
titheable  property  must  contribute  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  clergy,  whether  they  approve  of  the  contribution 
or  not" — Methodists,  Baptists,  all  nonconformists — they 
all  have  the  "  control "  of  their  funds,  after  the  payment 
is  "enforced  by  process  of  law  I"  And  finally,  that  the 
right  of  suffrage  is  not  denied  to  its  private  members ! 
Then  they  can  act  with  the  "  council  to  assist  him  (the 
bishop)  in  the  affairs  of  religion,"  by  their  chosen  repre- 
sentatives, at  least!  All  this  we  are  asked  to  do!  to 
reverse  our  original  propositions!! 

Now,  we  did  not  take  it  upon  ourselves  to  inform  our 
readers  that  the  Church  of  England  was  established  by 
law,  and  that  the  crown,  by  consequence,  was  the  high- 
est recognized  officer — the  head — of  that  Church.  We 
really  thought  we  might  take  it  for  granted  that  this 
was  known  by  men  of  common  intelligence.  In  the 
days  of  King  Henry  VIII,  the  right  of  appointing  the 
Arch-Bishop  of  Canterbury,  the  highest  ecclesiastic  in 
the  realm,  belonged  to  the  crown.  But  when  Elizabeth 
came  to  the  throne,  because  the  Scriptures  declared 
that  a  woman  was  not  permitted  to  speak  in  the  Church, 
this  prerogative  was  waved  by  the  Queen,  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  that  dignitary,  ever  since,  we  believe,  has 
devolved  upon  the  "  chapter." 

Must  we  say  to  Brother  Hamill,  that  the  constitution- 
al officers  of  the  Church  of  England,  whether  they  be 
king,  queen,  lords,  noblemen,  or  patrons,  are  not  pri- 
vate members?  If  the  laws  of  the  realm  invest  them 
with  a  portion  of  Episcopal  authoi'ity,  whether  they  are 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  109 

preachers  or  not,  are  they  not  part  and  parcel  of  that 
Episcopacy?  Is  not  the  Crown  the  great  embodiment 
of  this  Episcopacy — the  head  of  the  Church — defender 
of  the  faith?  Are  official  members  of  Churches  to  be 
regarded  as  private  members,  simply  because  they  do 
not  preach? 

Sincerely  do  we  thank  Bro.  Hamill  for  his  quotations 
from  Mr.  Noel.  The  reader  has  in  these  extracts  a 
pretty  fair  portraiture  of  the  corruptions  and  tendencies 
of  Episcopacy.  What  Episcopacy  in  England  now  is, 
Episcopacy  in  America  may  be  hereafter.  Ecad  these 
extracts  from  Mr,  Noel  again,  and  then  say,  what  are 
we  to  expect  from  the  daughter,  when  the  mother  prac- 
tices such  abominations  as  these?  There  may  be  "  lay 
management  to  the  fullest  extent"  if  the  constitutional 
officers  of  the  Church  are  laymen;  but  we  submit,  there 
is  not  much  lay  representation  in  that  management. 

Shall  we  make  an  "  unt^ualified  retraction"  of  these 
"  glaring  errors,"  Brother  Hamill?  We  should  like  to 
do  so  on  several  accounts.  First,  we  should  like  to 
please  you  in  such  an  affair.  We  do  not  like  to  dis- 
obey clerical  "  demands."  Secondly,  if  we  could  do  so, 
it  would  wonderfully  strengthen  our  argument  in  regard 
to  the  anti-Republican  nature  and  tendencies  of  Method- 
ist Episcopacy.  For  the  sake  of  strengthening  this  ar- 
gument, we  could  wish — sincerely  wish — that  you  could 
prove  that  we  were  mistaken  in  every  one  of  these 
points.  In  that  case,  you  would  succeed  in  proving 
what?  Why,  that  an  Established  Church  in  a  Monarchi- 
cal Governraent,  is  more  Democratic  in  its  structure 
than  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  free  Com- 


10 


110  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

mon wealth  of  the  United  States!  1  Shall  we  "  retract" 
and  leave  your  Chuixh  "  alone  in  its  glory?"  No;  we 
cannot  do  so,  until  we  have  some  better  evidence  that 
we  are  mistaken,  than  has  yet  been  furnished. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  all  these  extracts  from  Mr. 
Noel,  may  be  stated  in  a  few  words.  The  Episcopal 
authority  in  the  English  Church,  whether  in  the  hands 
of  the  Crown,  lords,  noblemen,  prelates,  or  what  not,  as 
its  constitutional  officers,  is  corrupt  and  corrupting — 
as  it  is  not  amenable  to  the  people,  no  check  can  be  in- 
terposed upon  its  abominations — its  piety  is  a  libel 
upon  the  Christian  name  —  and  therefore,  although 
holding  a  high  position  among  its  dignitaries,  he  with- 
drew from  it,  and  connected  himself  with  the  Baptists, 
and  was  soon  followed  by  several  hundi-ed  members  of 
his  former  charge. 

As  we  are  not  arguing  the  congruity  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy  with  English  monarchy,  we  leave  our  friend 
to  present  as  many  points  of  contrast  between  an  Eng- 
lish king  and  a  Methodist  bishop,  as  his  imagination  can 
supply. 

And  so  you  endorse  the  answer  your  bishops  gave  to 
the  memorials  of  local  preachers  and  private  members, 
praying  for  the  right  of  representation  in  the  law-mak- 
ing councils  of  your  Church — "  Pardon  us  if  we  know 
no  such  rights,  if  we  comprehend  no  such  privileges!" 
Well,  we  do  not  wonder  that  you  have  struck  your  usu- 
al caption  from  your  articles,  "  Methodist  Episcopacy 
NOT  anti-Republican."  How  a  government,  whose  con- 
stitutional authorities  can  answer  a  petition  from  its 
citizens  asking  to  be  represented  in  its  legislative,  exe- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  HI 

cutive,  and  judicial  departments,  that  they  "  know  no 
such  rights,  that  they  comprehend  no  such  privileges," 
can  nevertheless  be  Democratic  or  Republican,  would 
puzzle  a  Jesuit  to  see.  We  are  not  astonished,  there- 
fore, that  Brother  Hamill  has  taken  down  that  sign. 

But  our  space  will  not  allow  us  to  proceed  further. 
We  say  in  conclusion,  that  the  publication  of  these  ar- 
ticles in  some  one  or  more  of  the  Methodist  journals,  is 
left  entirely  to  the  negotiation  of  Brother  Hamill. 

Jane  7tb,  1855. 


112  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


LETTER  IV. 

METHODISM. 

More  twisting  ;  Encouraging  admissions  ;  Mr.  Noel  on  government 
of  tlie  Englisli  Church  by  worldly  politicians  ;  A  queer  Parlia- 
mentary Episcopacy;  Danger  of  Methodist  Episcopacy  being 
controlled  by  the  State  as  English  Episcopacy  is ;  Retraction  re- 
fused ;  Fate  of  those  who  would  mend  our  doctrines  ;  Bishop  As- 
bury's  claim  upon  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  ;  Challenge  to 
publish  a  Church  deed  ;  Freedom  of  speech  again  ;  Parallels  up- 
on the  title  of  Bishop  ;  Dr.  Coke's  injudicious  application  for  re- 
ordiuation  ;  Father  Jesse  Mercer's  opinion  of  a  Ministers'  Confer- 
ence ;  The  strange  Representation  in  the  Southern  Baptist  Con- 
vention ;  A  Quarterly  Conference  metamorphosed  into  another 
Episcopacy  ;  Prerogatives  of  the  laity;  Reasoning  which  will  de- 
termine the  funny  problem ;  The  Methodist  Church  government 
resembles  our  civil  government  more  closely  than  the  Baptist 
Church  government  does,  proved  by  several  logical  arguments ; 
Twenty  Baptist  ministers  in  Canada,  threw  oft'  the  yoke  of  Close 
Communion  ;  John  Bunyan's,  Baptist  Noel's,  and  Robert  Hall'3 
abhorrence  of  the  same  yoke  ;  Connectionalism  of  Methodism  ;  A 
Baptist  excommunicated  for  joining  a  sister  Church ;  Beauties  of  the 
Republicanism  of  the  Alabama  Baptists,  as  portrayed  by  their  own 
historian,  Rev.  H.  Holcombe  ;  A  gracious  privilege  rescinded  ; 
Anti-Republican  resolutions  of  sixteen  Baptist  Churches  ;  A  Bap- 
tist's opinion  of  the  persecuting  spirit  of  the  Claiborne  Baptist 
Church  ;  The  Alabama  Baptist  State  Convention  votes  that  an  in- 
fernal spirit  gets  into  every  Baptist  community,  however  small ; 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  113 

Paternal  chastisement ;  Baptist  inquisitorial  taxation  without  re- 
presentation ;  The  penalty  -^  The  modus  operandi  of  assessment ; 
Uncommon  submissivencss  ;  Burns  ;  If  Baptists  are  not  equal  to 
angels,  a  civil  government,  framed  after  the  model  of  their  Church 
government,  would  not  do  ;  Anecdote. 

••  Fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  snn,  ternble  as  an  array  with  banners." 
"  Onl  ot  thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge  thee.."— LuKi. 

Brother  Henderson  : 

Wc  are  gratified  that  you  "love  our  Methodist 
brethren,  because  they  love  our  common  Lord,  and  have 
exhibited  a  zeal  in  his  cause  worthy  of  all  praise."  A 
good  tree  bringcth  forth  good  fruit.  How  does  this  de- 
claration square  with  your  "  honorably  exonerating  (of) 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  from  all  agency  in  the  construc- 
tion of  Methodism."  More  twisting,  my  dear  brother. 
Still  wc  accept  gratefully  the— all  praise  for  zeal  in  the 
Lord's  cause,  and  leave  the  twistification  in  your  undis- 
turbed possession. 

Admission  after  admission  of  the  excellence  of  our 
eystcm,  falls  almost  unconsciously  from  your  lips.  Our 
love  and  zeal  for  the  Lord,  so  praiseworthy — "  we  are 
as  good  Democrats  and  Republicans  as  any  in  the  land," 
— "the  credit  of  it  (our  glorious  itinerancy)  belongs  to 
all  forms  of  Church  government" — you  no  longer  "  ar- 
gue the  congruity  of  Methodist  Episcopacy  with  Eng- 
lish Monarchy."  Really  this  is  encouraging;  it  fully  re- 
compenses me  for  the  task  of  rectifying  your  opinion  of 
our  excellent  Church  government.  I  continue  this  hope- 
ful work. 

Let  Mr.  Noel  inform  you  more  perfectly  of  the  power 
of  English  bishops,  in  confirming  the  nominations  of  lay 
patrons  to  benefices.     "  If  deans  and  chapters  refuse  to 


114  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

elect  the  prime-minister's  nominee,  each  member  of  the 
chapter  is  liable  to  the  intolerable  penalties  of  a  p-a- 
piunire.  No  cases  of  a  refusal  occur,  the  patronage  of 
a  prime-minister  carries  him  through  all  difficulties." — 
p.  181.  Hear  Queen  Elizabeth's  threat  to  the  Bishop  of 
Ely;  "Proud  prelate,  you  know  what  you  were  before 
I  made  you  what  you  are;  if  you  do  not  immediately 
comply  with  my  request,  by  God,  I  will  immediately  un- 
frock you," — Noel,  p.  47.  Again:  you  wish  to  know 
"if  the  laws  of  the  realm  invest  them  (Queen,  Lords, 
Parliaments,  &c.)  with  a  portion  of  Episcopal  authority, 
are  they  not  part  and  parcel  of  Episcopacy?"!  I  Ha!  hal 
Episcopacy,  indeed!  You  are  like  one  who  has  had  a 
iiard  fall:  objects  multiply  before  your  vision.  Hear 
Noel  once  more  ;  "  Anglican  Churches  are  placed 
under  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  worldly  politi- 
cians, assembled  in  Parliament,  including  Roman  Ca- 
tholics and  Unitarians." — p.  400.  How  do  you  like  this 
lay  delegation?  You  answer,  "  An  Established  Church 
in  England  is  more  Democratic  than  the  Methodist 
Church  in  the  United  States."  That  is  to  say,  an  union 
of  Church  and  State  is  better  Democracy  than  a  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State.  Well  done.  Brother  Hender- 
son! I  did  not  think  you  capable  of  making  so  anti- 
Eepublican  an  avowal  I  We  do  certainly  eschew  all 
such  Democracy  as  that.  You  think  "  what  Episcopacy 
in  England  now  is.  Episcopacy  in  America  may  be." 
Fie!  fie!  Brother  Henderson.  Pray  do  not  charge  our 
civil  government  with  the  design  of  uniting  Church  and 
State. 

You  ran  a  parallel  between  the  Methodist  Church  and 
the  Church  of  England.     I  showed  you,  upon  the  autho- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  115 

rity  of  Mr.  Noel,  the  marked  contrast,  in  specified  points, 
between  tbe  Churches,  and  asked  of  your  candor  a  re- 
traction of  the  comparison.  You  evade  the  issue,  and 
refuse  it.     Let  the  public  judge  between  us. 

You  re-assert  that  "  we  impose  articles  of  faith  upon 
our  people  without  their  consent."  Now,  it  is  known 
to  the  world  that  every  one  who  joins  our  Church,  vol- 
untarily subscribes  to  the  articles  of  our  faith,  which 
cannot  be  changed  by  any  Church  power  whatever:  be- 
cause they  are  Bible  truths.  Does  not  a  candidate  for 
membership  in  your  Church  do  the  same  thing?  If  any 
join  us,  who  will  be  "  carried  about  with  every  wind  of 
doctrine"  and 

"  Who  think  religion  is  intended 
For  nothing  else  than  to  be  mended," — Hudibra?. 

we  are  soon  happily  relieved  by  the  first  proselyter  who 
comes  along,  and  bears  away  his  dupe  triumphantly. 

The  Methodist  Book  Concern  is  not  the  property  of 
the  bishops,  as  you  wrongfully  state;  it  is  held  by  the 
entire  body  of  ministers  in  the  several  Conferences,  for 
specified  purposes:  first,  the  dissemination  of  religious 
literature;  and  secondly,  that  the  profits  of  the  Concern, 
if  any,  shall  be  applied  to  the  relief  of  the  deficient  or 
distressed  preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  the 
holy  dead.  Bishop  Asbury,  one  of  its  founders,  the  man 
who  soared  so  gloriously  to  the  tops  of  the  highest 
mountains,  in  extreme  poverty,  to  preach  the  Gospel, 
said,  "  I  am  resolved  not  to  claim  any  property  in  the 
Book  Concern;  it  shall  be  sacred  to  invalid  preachers." 
&,c.  Every  solitary  contributor  to  this  fund,  contributed 
to  it  with  the  express  understanding  that  it  should  be 


116  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

so  used.  Is  it,  then,  anti-Republican  to  obey  the  voice 
of  the  people  who  created  it,  in  carrying  out  their  wish- 
(BS  in  this  useful  and  sacred  charity?  Catholic  congre- 
gations have  never  contested  any  such  point.  They 
have  no  Book  Concern  at  all,  that  I  know  of.  With  re- 
gard to  Church  buildings,  I  now  call  on  you  to  publish 
the  deed  of  any  Methodist  Church  in  the  land,  and  let 
the  public  see  for  themselves  whether  your  charge  is 
true  or  false.  Is  it  Grub-street  vernacular  to  pronounce 
utterly  false,  the  charge  that  bishops  can  control  the 
suffrages  of  our  members?  !  I 

Your  own  articles  prove  our  unlimited  freedom  of 
speech;  from  them  we  learn  that  the  Methodists  have  a 
queer  way  of  punishing  freedom  of  speech,  by  making 
the  disaffected,  such  as  McKendrce  and  Bascom,  bishops  1 
The  noble  ladies  whose  relatives  were  expelled,  tell  us 
themselves,  their  kindred  "  were  denounced  as  back- 
sliders and  disturbers  of  the  peace."  And  your  own 
Baptist  Discipline  says,  p.  20,  "  WTi-eii  a  member  breaks  the 
peace  of  the  Church  by  jamglings  and  disputings,  he  shall  be 
suspended."  Your  verbose  attack  upon  the  mere  title  of  our 
bishops,  I  summarily  dispose  of  in  the  following  paral- 
lels: 

Look  at  this  :  Then  at  this  : 

"  I-firmly  believe  I  am  a  scrip-  He  solemnly  set  apart  Thomas 

tural  Episcopos,  as  much  as  any  Coke,  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 

man  in  England." — John  Weslet/.  of  England,   for  the  Episcopal 

"  Their  father  in  the  Lord,  may  ofiBce." — Methodist  Discipline. 

be  called  the  bishop  or  overseer  of  "  The  way  appointed  by  Christ 

them  all. — John   Wesley. — Watt's  for  the  calling  of  any  person  to 

Wesley,  p.  135.  the  ofiBcc  of  bishop  or  elder  in  the 

"  A  bishop  must  be  blameless."  Church." —  Baptist  Discipline,    p. 

—Paul.  56. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  HY 

It  is  objected  that  Mr.  Wesley  reproved  Mr.  Asbury 
for  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  though  he  thought  him- 
self a  scriptural  Episcopos.  To  the  assumption  of  the 
title,  simply,  because  of  its  abuse,  I  allow  Mr.  Wesley 
was  opposed,  but  not  to  the  thing  signified  by  it.  And 
our  American  brethren  showed  a  laudable  independence  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  in  preferring  the  scriptural  term,  bishop,  to 
its  synonym,  superintendent.  But  neither  Mr.  Wesley, 
nor  the  Baptist  Discipline,  nor  Paul,  meant  to  call  those 
who  chose  to  be  styled  bishops  rather  than  superinten- 
dents, either  knaves,  fools,  or  rascals.  Bishop  Asbury 
kindly  says,  "  These  unpleasant  expressions  of  the  dear 
old  man,  (were)  occasioned  by  the  misrepresentations 
of  others."  What  a  tempest  did  you  awake  to  waft  a 
feather! 

Dr.  Coke  injudiciously,  perhaps,  woiild  have  submit- 
ted to  rc-ordination,  just  as  Timothy  allowed  Paul  to 
circumcise  him,  not  because  he  would  not  have  been  a 
good  minister,  or  bishop  without  it,  but  to  enlarge  bis 
influence. 

Upon  the  subject  of  "  a  Conference  Episcopacy" — of 
ministers,  hear  Father  Jesse  Mercer,  that  good  old 
Georgia  Baptist,  Memoirs,  p.  209,  "  If  all  the  ministers 
of  our  order  in  the  State,  had  at  once  formed  a  Minialcrs^ 
Meeting,  with  a  view  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the  faith 
in  the  Churches,  and  had  co-operated  in  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  all  those  distracting  controversies  which  have 
broken  the  peace,  and  spoiled  the  beauty  of  our 
Churches,  would  have  been  prevented."  Was  this  anti- 
Republican? 

Methodism  delights  in  lay  delegation,  in  all  matters 
wherein  the  laity  arc  equally  concerned  with  the  minis- 


H8  A  DISCUSSION   ON 

try — in  financial,  missionary,  and  other  boards.  But 
we  guard  against  such  an  irregular  representation  as 
formed  the  constituents  of  your  last  Southern  Conven- 
tion, in  Montgomery.  In  that  Convention,  called  South- 
ern, and  in  which,  therefore,  fourteen  States  should 
have  been  nearly  equally  represented,  there  were  two 
hundred  and  four  delegates;  one  from  Florida,  none 
from  Texas,  &c.,  and  ninety-four  of  them  from  Alabama. 
Now  suppose  our  Congress  had  two  hundred  and  four 
delegates,  and  ninety-four  of  them  from  Virginia,  one 
from  Florida,  none  from  Texas,  &c.,  would  you  call  this 
a  Representative  Congress?     I  trow  not. 

You  are  pleased  to  term  our  Quarterly  Conference, 
"an  Episcopacy."  Ha!  hal  And  if  the  party  himself, 
who  feels  aggrieved  carries  his  case  before  it,  it  is  anti- 
Republican  1  I  suppose  you  know  our  highest  authori- 
ties condemn  a  reference.  Once  more  allow  me  to  say 
of  the  judicial,  and  executive  power  of  our  laity,  without 
the  vote  of  the  laity,  none  can  be  licensed  to  preach;  none 
can  be  received  into  the  itinerancy ;  none  can  be  received 
into  the  Church.  As  I  myself  received  hy  vote  of  the  Chvrch, 
fourteen  into  full  connection,  on  the  very  Sabbath  before 
your  article  appeared,  affirming  the  membership  had  no 
voice  in  this  matter.  I  add  also,  that  the  suffrages  of 
the  laity,  are  indispensable  to  every  Church  act,  in  every 
one  of  the  thousands  of  our  Churches.  Besides  their 
management  in  all  of  our  grand  enterprises. 

I  have  now  followed  you  step  by  step,  and  examined 
thoroughly,  and  fairly,  the  ground  of  your  charge,  first, 
against  our  bishops;  secondly,  against  what  you  term 
our  Conference  Episcopacy;  and  las1?ly,  against  your 
newly-invented  Quarterly  Conference  Episcopacy;  and 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  Hg 

I  find  your  accusation  of  anti-Eepublicanism,  in  every 
case  utterly  groundless.  If,  therefore,  you  still  imagine 
Methodism  anti-Kepublican,  a  similar  style  of  reasoning 
will  determine  your  funny  problem,  of  the  distance  of  a 
kitchen  fifteen  feet  square  from  the  spring — it  will  prove 
anything. 

I  now  aflSrm  that  the  Methodist  Church  government, 
resembles  more  closely  our  civil  government,  than  the 
Baptist  Church  government.  In  proof  of  this,  I  use  the 
argumentum  ad  hmninem — recognized  in  logic  as  a  legiti- 
mate argument.  I  state  it  thus:  Our  Federal,  and  I 
might  add,  our  State  government  is  Republican.  That 
which  approximates  most  closely  to  it,  is  most  Republi- 
can. But  the  Methodist  Church  government,  is  more 
nearly  after  this  model,  than  the  Baptist  Church  govern- 
ment; therefore,  the  Methodist  Church  is  more  Repub- 
lican than  the  Baptist  Church.  Now  for  the  proof,  that 
the  Methodist  Church  is  more  perfectly  after  this  Repub- 
lican model.  The  Methodist  Church  does  not  usurp  au- 
thority over  the  conscience  of  her  members,  in  debarring 
them  from  holy  communion  with  their  orthodox  breth- 
ren, at  the  Lord's  table;  but  the  Baptist  Church  does 
deprive  them  of  this  Christian  liberty.  In  this  respect, 
American  Baptists  arc  far  beliind,  perhaps,  a  majority 
of  their  English  brethren.  Those  great  lights  of  your 
Church,  John  Buuyan,  Baptist  Noel,  and  Robert  Hall, 
abhorred  the  practice  of  close  communion;  and  the  last 
named,  expressed  himself  in  indignant  terms  in  refer- 
ence to  the  tyranny  of  this  practice.  I  know  not 
whether  your  members  chafe  under  this  restriction,  but 
I  do  know,  that  constituted  as  my  mind  is,  it  would  be 
impossible  for   tlie  Methodist   Episcopacy,  and  entire 


120  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Church,  to  place  upon  my  neck  so  galling  a  yoke  as 
this — which  forbade  me  to  commune  with  my  dearest 
kindred,  were  they  never  so  pious,  if  they  followed  not 
with  us.  Twenty  Baptist  ministers  in  Canada  have  re- 
cently resolved  to  submit  no  longer  to  this  arbitrary 
dominion  over  their  conscience.  No  power  could  com- 
pel me  to  debar  from  the  Lord's  table  Christians  whom 
I  knew  to  be  living  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ©vea  if 
I  thought  their  baptism  utterly  defective.  If,  therefore, 
liberty  be  at  all  synonymous  with  Republicanism,  we 
are  certainly  in  this  respect,  more  Republican  than  the 
Baptist  Church. 

Again:  "  Each  Baptist  Church  is  not  subject  to  the 
cognizance  of  any  synod  or  council  whatever;  nor  have 
Associations  any  Church  power  properly  so  called,  nor 
any  jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  themselves — to  exer- 
cise any  censure,"  &c. — Baptist  Discipline,  p.  58.  If, 
therefore,  our  civil  government  were  framed  on  this 
plan,  we  would  have  no  legislature  properly  so  called, 
nor  judiciary,  nor  executive,  and  hence  no  government 
at  all;  our  country  would  be  a  vast  chain  of  broken 
neighborhoods,  perfectly  denationalized.  But  the  con- 
nectionalism  of  Methodism,  binds  us  together  into  one 
great  harmonious  whole,  with  due  restrictions  upon 
every  several  part;  it  is  therefore  more  after  the  model 
of  our  civil,  government. 

Again:  Methodism  grants  an  honorable  dismissal  to 
any  member,  who  desires  to  withdraw  and  join  a  sister 
Church;  but  the  Baptist  Church  will  not  allow  a  mem- 
ber to  withdraw  and  join  a  sister  Church,  without  the 
censure  of  excommunication. — Baptist  Discipline,  p.  23. 
Our  Republic  will  allow  a  citizen  to  expatriate  himself, 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  121 

without  censure;  but  despotic  gOYernments  will  not 
allow  this;  therefore  in  this,  our  Church  resembles  our 
civil  government,  and  yours  the  g-overnment  of  despots. 
Again:  Your  own  historian  furnishes  us  with  many 
striking  instances  of  what  he  himself  terms  anti-Repub- 
lican legislation  in  the  Baptist  Churches  of  Alabama; 
such  instances  as  are  unequalled  elsewhere  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  orthodox  Churches  of  our  Republic,  I  quote 
from  the  "  History  of  Alabama  Baptists,"  by  Rev.  Hosea 
Holcombe,  endorsed  by  the  Alabama  Baptist  State  Con- 
vention, 1835.  He  says — "  Here  we  see  the  separating 
line  drawn;  here  we  see  the  large  body  of  the  denomin- 
ation in  Europe  and  America,  excluded  by  the  minority, 
and  comparatively  a  small  one." — p.  98.  This  is  con- 
trary to  the  principle  of  Democracy,  that  majorities 
should  rule.  Of  a  Church  called  Bethel,  he  says,  "  A  re- 
solution was  once  passed  in  this  Church,  that  each  mem- 
ber should  enjoy  the  liberty  of  doing  as  he  pleased  in 
missionary  matters — give  or  let  alone,  as  he  deemed 
right."  Gracious  privilege,  was  it  not? — to  give  a  mem- 
ber tlie  lilierty  of  using  his  own  money,  in  sending  a 
Baptist  ministry  to  those  destitute  of  the  Gospel  1 
A'erily,  the  members  should  have  been  thankful  for  so 
Democratic  a  grant!  But  their  joy  would  have  been 
short;  for  he  says,  "  This  u as  found  too  RefiilUcan  for  the 
preacher,  and  by  his  influence  it  was  rescinded." — p.  108. 
Again:  A  friend,  writing  to  him  of  the  Claiborne  Baptist 
Church,  says,  "  1  need  not  tell  yoih  the  foundation  of  all  was 
laid  by  that  cursed  anti-missionary  spirit  which,  while  it  cries 
out  freexlom,  Republiainism,  c&c,  would  fetter  the  consciences 
of  those  who  h'lve  been  benevolent  in  their  practice;  and  I  have 
been  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  if  the  power  was  by  them  posscs- 
11 


122  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

sed,  the  conscience  is  not  all  they  would  bind;  hut  the  body 
would  he  doomed  to  endure  all  the  horrors  of  a  dungeon,  if 
they  were  permitted  to  escape  t/ie  lashP — p.  114.  This  is  a 
dear  case  of  anti- Republicanism.  You  will  please  take  no- 
tice, it  is  not  I,  but  a  Baptist,  who  prefers  this  charge. 
Once  more:  Speaking  of  the  Conecuh  River  Association, 
p.  246,  he  says,  "  A  division  has  taken  place,  sixteen 
C hurches  declaring  in  favor  of  the  anti- Republican,  anti-Chris- 
tian, and  anti- Gospel  resolutions."  I  will  not  dwell  longer 
at  present  upon  the  numerous  cases  of  awful,  tyranni- 
cal, and  anarchical  legislation  in  the  Baptist  Churches 
of  Alabama,  so  deeply  deplored  by  your  good  Brother 
Holcombe.  Your  own  commendable  devotion  to  the 
missionary  cause,  tells  plainly,  that  if  you  "  had  been  in 
the  days  of  your  fathers,  you  would  not  have  been  par- 
takers with  them;"  nevertheless  these  sad  results  are 
justly  chargeable  upon  your  defective  Church  govern- 
ment, which  gave  scope  for  such  sad  legislation;  I 
think  with  Jesse  Mercer,  that  an  union  of  ministers, 
like  our  Conference,  for  instance,  would  largely  have 
prevented  such  disorder. 

Prom  the  records  of  your  last  State  Convention  in 
Montgomery,  published  in  your  own  paper,  May  31st,  I 
fear  the  same  evils  still  exist  in  your  community.  I 
find  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Education,  adopt- 
ed by  the  Convention,  and  I  suppose,  approved  by  your- 
self— a  report  presented  by  your  excellent  brother-in- 
law,  my  old  friend,  Brother  Talliaferro,  of  Talladega,  the 
following  language:  "  God  forbid  that  we  should  ever 
lift  up  our  voice  against  the  independent  or  congrega- 
tional form  of  government  held  to  by  the  Baptist 
Church,  (we  would  not  oppose  Christ  and  his  Apostles) 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  123 

but  against  their  frequent  abuse  of  it,  we  would  lift  up 
our  voice  like  a  trumpet,  and  tell  our  people  of  their 
transgressions.  We  would  go  further,  and  become  ex- 
orcist; for  if  the  Holy  Messiah  would  not  assist  us 
against  a  demon  so  loathsome  and  filthy,  (sectional  pre- 
judice,) we  would,  if  Satan  would  for  once  depart  frota 
his  usual  policy,  form  an  alliance  with  him,  and  it  should 
be  proclaimed  to  an  astonished  world,  '  Satan  had  cast 
out  Satan.'  This  infernal  spirit  gets  into  every  Baptist 
community,  however  small,  magnifies  their  territory  into  the  dig- 
nity and  itnportance  of  an  emjnre,  makes  their  existence  depend 
upon  the  ill  success  or  downfall  of  every  other  interest  unpro- 
motive  of  their  ownJ'  This  is  awfully  severe;  but  it  is 
tlie  language  of  your  late  Convention,  and  I  imagine  I 
may  justly  call  it  yours  also.  Of  the  truth  of  it,  you 
yourselves  are  the  best  judges.  Modesty  and  charity 
forbid  me  speaking  so  harshly  of  the  Baptist  Church  as 
you  have  done  in  the  above  extract;  but  I  suppose  chas- 
tisement from  your  own  household  is  considered  pater- 
nal, and  therefore  allowable,  when  a  similar  castigation 
from  a  stranger  would  be  warmly  resented. 

You  have  been  free  to  charge  us  with  taxation  with- 
out representation,  albeit  to  recommend  the  support  of 
the  ministry  without  threatening  Church  censure,  can- 
not be  properly  called  taxation.  The  nearest  approach 
to  taxation  proper,  and  almost  without  representation, 
I  have  ever  known  in  any  Church  in  our  free  country, 
was  in  the  action  of  your  own  ministers'  and  deacons' 
meeting,  Tuskegoe,  April  27th.  Tliere  were  present  at 
that  meeting,  fifteen  ministers,  fifteen  deacons,  and 
twelve  private  members.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that  these 
fifteen  ministers  represented  thirty  Churches,  each  miu- 


124  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

istcr  representing  two  Churches.  On  looking  over  the 
list  of  deacons  and  private  members,  I  find  that  nearly 
half  the  deacons,  and  ten  out  of  twelve  of  the  private 
members,  were  from  the  Tuskegee  Church;  so  that  the 
remaining  twenty-nine  Churches  were  represented,  apart 
from  the  ministers,  by  about  seven  or  eight  deacons  and 
but  two  private  members — a  very  slender  representa- 
tion, truly.  At  this  meeting,  which  it  would  be  a  mis- 
nomer to  call  a  representative  assembly,  the  question  is 
asked,  "  What  should  be  done  with  a  Church  member 
who,  having  the  ability,  refuses  to  give  as  God  has  pros- 
pered him,  for  the  support  of  the  gospel?"  "  Ans.  He 
should  be  labored  with  and  admonished,  and  if  he  per- 
sists in  his  covetousness,  he  should  be  excluded  from 
fellowship."  In  another  part  of  the  same  minutes,  you 
define  the  passage  "  as  God  has  prospered  him,"  thus: 
"  each  member  furnishing  the  deacon  a  statement  of  the 
value  of  his  property  and  income,  so  as  to  enable  them 
to  make  a  pro  rata  distribution  among  the  members."  It 
was  by  no  means  improper,  in  the  big-souled  Baptists 
of  Tuskegee,  for  such  are  many  of  them,  to  have  recom- 
mended liberality;  but  to  demand  that  statement  of 
the  value  of  both  property  and  income  of  the  members,  was 
rather  too  inquisitorial;  and  then  to  threaten  exclusion 
against  any  who  refused  this  inquisitorial  taxation,  was 
altogether  too  hasty  a  measure.  Look  at  the  practical 
workings  of  the  rule.  Imagine  a  deacon  asking  a  plant- 
er the  value  of  his  lands,  negroes,  and  nett  proceeds  of 
his  crop;  requiring  a  merchant  to  give  a  statement  of 
his  assets,  properly  classed,  as  good  or  doubtful,  and 
his  liabilities,  the  probable  loss  on  unsaleable  goods, 
the  amount  of  his  sales,  and  the  nett  gain  thereof,  all 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  125 

expenses  being  paid.     Imagine  the  deacon  inquiring  of 

the  money-lender,  "  What  amount,  Brother ,  have 

you  Ipaned  out  on  interest?"  And  if  he  shaved  notes,  as 
unfortunately  is  sometimes  the  case,  the  nett  profit 
of  the  transaction?  All  these  particulars — for  a  state- 
ment of  the  value  of  property  and  income  involves  them 
all — given  under  the  threat  of  exclusion  from  fellowship, 
and  as  the  mis-called  representative  assembly  ordered 
it.  I  think,  sir,  you  will  find  your  decree  impracticable. 
If,  however,  your  members  submit  to  it,  it  is  their  busi- 
ness, not  mine.  I  should,  however,  be  glad  to  know  it; 
for  I  should  then  frankly  admit  that  your  members  bear 
off  the  palm  from  all  Churches  for  docility  and  submis- 
siveness  to  the  powers  that  be.  Very  sure  am  I,  that 
every  Methodist  Church  I  have  known,  would  be  rather 
refractory  under  this  yoke. 

"  O  wad  some  power  the  giftie  gie  us, 
To  see  ourselves  as  others  sec  us, 
It  wad  frae  many  a  blunder  free  us, 

Aud  foolish  notion,'' — Buuxs. 

I  think  highly  of  the  ability  of  your  people  for  self- 
government,  notwithstanding  the  numerous  defects  of 
your  Church  government.  I  know  they  would  not  wish 
to  frame  a  civil  government  upon  so  disjointed  a  plan. 
If  they  did,  I  would  assuredly  think  them  sadly  defec- 
tive in  law-making  skill;  or  if  the  civil  government 
framed  after  this  pattern,  were  found  sufficient  for  their 
wants,  I  would  then  regard  them  as  angels,  infallible  in 
intellect  and  immaculate  in  heart — incapable  of  misde- 
meanors, and  who,  therefore,  would  need  no  government 
at  all.     But  to  err  is  human. 


126  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

With  this  demonstration  of  the  fact,  that  the  Method- 
ist Church  government  is  more  after  the  model  of  our 
civil  government  than  yours,  if  you  think  your  go- 
vernment better,  it  will  be  like  the  preference  of  the 
Irishman,  who  said,  "  The  moon  was  more  useful  than 
the  sun,  for  the  sun  gave  light  in  the  day-time,  when  we 
did  not  need  it,  whereas  the  moon  shone  when  it  was 
dark."  For  your  argument  I  have  given  you  argument; 
for  your  railing,  my  only  answer  is — silence.  I  have 
spoken  in  the  fear  of  God,  and,  I  trust,  kindly,  as  I 
would  promote  and  not  retard  the  success  of  the  gospel 
in  all  the  tribes  of  God's  Israel. 

Your  fellow-servant  in  Christ, 
E.  J.  HAMILL. 

June  21st.  1855. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  121 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  lY. 

INTERIOR  VIEW  OP   METHODIST  EPISCOPACY, 
BY  MASTER  ARTISTS. 

Advantages  of  religious  controversy;  Discrimination  between  men 
and  principles;  Absolute  clerical  power  unscriptural  and  danger- 
ous; A  peep  at  the  inner  vail;  Back  ground  sljetch  by  Bishop 
Bascom,  and  a  full  portraiture  by  Bishop  Hamline;  Mr.  Ham- 
line  rewarded  with  a  bishopric;  Analysis  of  the  picture;  Human 
credulity  has  some  bounds,  which  clerical  demands  may  not  pass; 
A  Presbyterian's  opinion  of  the  picture;  Mr.  Hamill's  fourth  let- 
ter; Congratulated  on  the  improvement  of  his  tone  and  spirit; 
The  "  fair"  and  "clear'"  disc  of  Methodism  makes  John  "Wesley 
"start  and  shudder;''  " Twistification;"  Natural  mistake;  Dexter- 
ous use  of  Mr.  Noel's  armory;  Transparent  perversion;  Articles 
of  faith  and  discipline  imposed  upon  the  laity  without  theii-  con- 
sent; Hudibras;  Another  quotation  from  Hudibras;  "Parallels;" 
Mr.  "Wesley  in  a  dilemma;  Singular  perversion  of  a  garbled  ex- 
tract from  the  Baptist  confession  of  faith;  Mr.  Wesley  competent 
to  construe  his  own  act;  A  digression  in  pursuit  of  Mr.  Hamill; 
Four  fundamental  points  in  Baptist  Church  polity;  Deacons'  Meet- 
ings, associations  and  conventions;  A  terrible  crime  against  "  our 
free  country;"  The  "decree"'  of  an  "  advisor;/  council;''  All  forms  of 
government  susceptible  of  abuse;  Reception  and  expulsion  of 
memVjcrs  in  the  M.  E.  Church;  Father  Mercer;  The  "standards" 
on  sacramental  communion;  The  Baptist  ground  occupied  l)y  all 
denominations;  Robert  Hall's  deimnciatlon  of  the  inconsistency 
of  Pedobaptists  in  asking  the  Baptists  to  sacrifice  a  principle  from 
which  the  practice  of  each  results;  Explanation  asked. 

"  As  certain  also  of  your  own  pools  have  said." — Acts  xvii.  28. 

Religious  controversy,  conducted  in  an  elevated  tone 
of  Christian  principle  and  candor,  ever  has  and  ever  will 


128  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

be  a  most  prolific  source  of  blessing  to  the  Church  and 
to  the  world.  For  the  time  being,  it  may  create  an  un- 
due and  even  unpleasant  excitement;  but  the  perma- 
nent good  it  accomplishes,  far  outweighs  its  temporary 
evils.  So  long  as  truth  is  held  to  be  dear  to  its  vota- 
ries, so  long  will  its  maintenance  devolve  upon  them 
the  arduous  and  often  unwelcome  task'  of  defending  it 
against  all  the  conflicting  claims  of  error.  Indeed,  truth 
and  error  must,  in  their  very  nature,  forever  antagonize. 
"  I  have  come,"  says  Christ,  "  to  set  fire  upon  the  earth; 
and  what  will  I  if  it  be  already  kindled?"  And  again: 
"  Every  plant  which  my  Heavenly  Father  hath  not  plant- 
ed, shall  be  rooted  up."  The  truth  is,  God  himself  pro- 
claimed war  against  sin  and  error  in  the  very  instant 
of  their  inti'oduction  to  this  world:  "  I  will  put  enmity 
between  thy  seed  and  her  seed."  And  this  war  has 
been  going  on  ever  since,  and  will  continue  until  one 
party  or  the  other  shall  be  totally  exterminated.  It  will 
be  a  sad  day  for  truth  when  its  friends,  out  of  complais- 
ance to  popular  opinion,  or  out  of  a  sickly,  sentimental 
catholicity,  can  quietly  see  its  virgin  form  hewed  in 
pieces,  and  perverted  to  purposes  alien  to  its  original 
intendment,  and  never  lift  their  voices  in  its  defence. 
And  when  error  shall  assume  the  sacred  vestments  and 
symbols  of  religion,  and  come  to  us  habited  "  as  an  an- 
gel of  light,"  beseeching  us  to  accept  of  its  protection 
and  patronage,  it  were  treason  against  the  throne  of 
Omnipotence  to  yield  to  its  overtures.  Then  the  Chris- 
tian— he  who  loves  God  hdter  than  man — ought  to  grasp 
the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  and  pierce  the  "  stolen  livery" 
with  as  little  compunction  of  conscience,  as  if  it  were 
furnished  from  the  wardrobe  of  perdition. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  129 

Thus  much,  then,  in  regard  to  reh'gious  controversy 
in  general.  We  have  ah'eady  stated,  in  reference  to  the 
subject  under  immediate  discussion,  that  we  are  con- 
tending with  no  man  or  set  of  men,  as  such.  We  are 
fighting  a  principle,  upon  which  we  cannot  detect  the 
divine  signature — a  principle  which  transfers  into  Epis- 
copal hands  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Churches  of 
Jesus  Christ — which  reverses  the  whole  govermental 
economy  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  by  maldng  the  Churches 
the,  servants  of  the  ministers,  instead  of  the  ministers  the  servants 
of  the  Churches — and  which,  if  unrestricted  by  other  modi- 
fying agencies,  will  go  on  accumulating-,  until  the  history 
of  Episcopacy  in  America  will  be  but  too  faithful  an  echo 
of  its  history  in  the  old  world.  We  challenge  any  man 
to  show  a  solitary  instance  in  which  such  unlimited, 
supreme,  and  irresponsible  power  has  been  claimed  by 
the  clergy  in  any  period  of  ecclesiastical  history,  where 
it  has  not  ended  in  corruption,  intolerance,  and  unre- 
lenting persecution — Avhere  it  has  not  ultimately  become 
the  right  arm  of  political  tyranny.  We  care  not  how 
pious,  honest,  numerous,  and  forrainable,  the  present 
friends  and  apologists  of  Episcopacy  may  be  in  this 
country. .  It  is  all  the  more  dangerous  for  this.  We 
proclaim  it  upon  the  house-top — we  nail  the  thesis  to  the 
door  of  each  and  every  of  its  adherents,  be  they  num- 
bered by  thousands,  millions,  or  hundreds  of  millions — 
that  the  history  of  Episcopacy,  up  to  tlie  period  of  its 
establishment  in  this  country,  is  written  in  carnage  and 
blood.  And  when  such  a  system  of  intolerance,  bigotry, 
and  persecution  rears  its  head  in  this  happy  land  of 
freedom,  religious  and  political — we  care  not  how  its 
lineaments  may  be  softened  by  the  pencil  of  artists — wc 


130  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

care  not  with  wliat  meekness  and  discretion  its  mitre 
may  be  "worn  by  its  present  dignitaries — it  is  an  as- 
sumption of  power  which  God  has  never  delegated  even 
to  angels.  And  we  proclaim  eternal  hostility  to  such 
an  unwarrantable  assumption  of  power  on  the  part  of 
any  set  of  men,  however  wise  their  heads  or  good  their 
hearts.  Said  an  inlelligent  and  well  read  member  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  us,  not  a  year  ago, 
in  urging  the  importance  of  there  being  a  variety  of 
sects  in  the  world,  "  The  tendency  of  ecclesiastical 
power  ever  has  been,  and  ever  will  be  to  corruption." 

We  have  been,  up  to  this  time,  attempting  to  deline- 
ate the  exterior  of  Methodist  Episcopacy — occupying 
the  attention  of  the  reader  with  such  views  of  it  as 
would  naturally  strike  the  attention  of  the  casual  ob- 
server. 

We  now  propose  entering  within  the  vail,  taking 
with  us  two  artists  of  established  reputation,  whose 
names  will  impart  a  value  to  their  picture,  which  will 
not  only  give  it  a  place  in  every  Methodist  parlor,  but 
also  in  the  parlor  of  every  well-wisher  to  Church  and 
State.  We  mean  Bishops  Bascom  and  Hamline.  The 
first  shall  sketch  the  hack-ground — the  second  shall  paint 
the  portraiture. 

"Art.  8th.  Where  all  the  power  and  forms  of  govern- 
ment are  held  and  managed  by  a  few,  who  act  without 
delegated  right  by  consent  of  the  people,  the  authority 
of  the  rulers  is  absolute,  and  the  people  are  disfran- 
chised of  all  right,  in  the  various  relations  existing  be- 
tween them,  as  subjects,  and  those  who  hold  the  reins 
of  government.  Such  a  government  must  always  lead 
to  mental  debility,  will  depress  the  moral  vigor  of  a 
people,  and  necessarily  abridge  the  liberty  of  reasoning 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  131 

and  investigation.  In  all  governments  of  this  kind, 
right  is  the  creature  of  fortune,  and  the  slave  of  caprice. 
Those  who  live  under  a  government,  which  denies  to 
the  people  the  right  of  representation,  blindly  engage 
to  submit  to  the  will  of  others,  right  or  wrong,  and 
must  continue  to  do  so,  or  else  deprive  themselves  of 
all  the  advantages  of  the  community  in  which  they  live, 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  its  evils.  The  enactment  of  all 
laws  and  rules,  therefore,  should  be  with  and  by  the 
consent  of  the  people,  and  their  execution  strictly  under 
their  control." 

No  contemptible  limner,  this  Henry  B.  Bascom.  But 
now  for  the  portraiture.  We  quote  from  the  "  Debates 
in  the  General  Conference,  held  in  the  City  of  Xew  York, 
1844,"  pages  128-129. 

"  Mr.  Hamline  said —  *  *  *  *  -jj^q  class-leader, 
by  mere  eccentricity,  becomes  unpopular  in  his  class. 
The  pastor  at  discretion  removes  him  from  his  ofBco. 
The  exhorter  or  unordained  local  preacher  proves  unac- 
ceptable, and  a  Quarterly  Conference  refuses  to  renew 
his  license.  The  itinerant  pastor  is  not  useful  in  his 
charge  and  the  bishop  or  the  presiding  elder  deposes 
him  from  his  charge  or  from  the  pastoral  office,  and 
makes  him  an  assistant.  The  presiding  elder  impairs 
his  usefulness  on  a  district,  not  bj''  gross  ?«rt/feasauce, 
but  by  a  slight  yw/sfcasance;  or  oftener  still  because  'he 
is  not  popular,'  and  the  bisliop  removes  him  to  a  station 
or  a  circuit,  and  perhaps  makes  him  an  assistant.  I 
speak  not  now  of  annual  appointments,  when  the  term 
of  the  itinerant  expires  by  limitation,  but  removals  by 
the  bishop  or  the  presiding  elder  in  the  intervals  of  con- 
fcix'uce,  which  always  imply  a  deposing  from  office,  as 
well  as  a  stationing  act.  In  all  these  instances,  the 
manner  of  removing  from  office  is  peculiar.  First:  It  is 
summary,  without  accusation,  trial,  or  formal  sentence. 
It  is  a  ministerial,  rather  than  a  judicial  act.  Second: 
It  is  for  no  crime,  and  generally  for  no  misdemeanor, 


132  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

but  for  being-  'unacceptable.'  Third:  Most  of  these  re- 
movals from  office  are  by  a  sole  agent,  namely,  by  a 
bishop  or  preacher,  whose  will  is  omnipotent  in  the 
premises.  Fourth:  The  removing  officer  is  not  legally 
obliged  to  assign  any  cause  for  deposing.  If  he  do  so, 
it  is  through  courtesy,  and  not  as  of  right.  Fifth:  The 
deposed  officer  has  no  appeal.  If  indiscreetly  or  unne- 
cessarily removed,  he  must  submit;  for  there  is  no  tri- 
bunal authorized  to  cure  the  error,  or  to  rectify  the 
wrong.  But  we  believe  that  there  are  good  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  for  granting  this  high  power  of  removal 
to  those  who  exercise  it.  It  promotes  religion.  It  binds 
the  Church  in  a  strong  and  almost  indissoluble  unity. 
It  quickens  the  communication  of  healing  influences  to 
the  infected  and  the  enfeebled  parts  of  the  body  ecclesi- 
astical. In  a  word,  it  is  a  s^'stem  of  surpassing  energy, 
and  '  is  worthy  of  all  eulogy.'" 

Mr.  Hamline  was  elevated  to  the  rank  of  bishop,  after 
making  the  speech  from  which  we  have  taken  the  fore- 
going extracts,  and  at  the  very  same  Conference.  So  that 
we  may  regard  his  exposition  of  Methodist  Episcopacy 
as  having  been  endorsed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
the  United  States. 

Now,  reader,  it  becomes  us  to  speak  in  a  serious  tone. 
Here  is  an  embodiment  of  ecclesiastical  power,  growing 
up  under  the  boughs  of  the  tree  of  liberty,  assuming  to 
do  what?  Look  at  it  sternly  in  the  face.  You  cannot 
plead  that  an  intervening  veil  obscures  the  picture. 
Methodists!  look  at  it!  and  we  have  mistaken  your  al- 
legiance to  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  as 
well  as  your  love  of  liberty,  civil  and  religious,  if,  after 
steadfastly  gazing  upon  it  long  enough  to  comprehend 
its  outlines,  you  do  not  feel  an  honest  indignation  rise 
in  your  bosoms  at  such  despotic  assumptions  on  the  part 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  133 

of  your  bishops  and  clergy.  You  cannot  plead  ignor- 
ance of  the  existence  of  this  unbridled,  unlimited  su- 
premacy of  your  Episcopacy,  for  we  have  dragged  it  to 
the  light  of  day,  and  exposed  it  to  your  view.  Again 
we  ask,  what  do  these  Rabbis  in  General  Conference  as- 
sembled assume?  Listen,  ye  who  are  charmed  with  the 
"  De}nocratic  element^'  in  this  system  of  spiritual  despot- 
ism: 

The  class-leader  may  be  removed  from  his  office  at 
the  discretion  of  the  pastor — the  pastor  may  be  removed 
at  the  discretion  of  the  bishop  or  presiding  elder — the  lo- 
cal preacher  may  be  suspended  at  the  discretion  of  the 
quarterly  Conferenee — the  presiding  elder  may  be  re- 
moved at  the  discretion  of  the  bishops.  Now,  let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly noted,  that  in  every  step  of  this  disciplinary  pro- 
cess, the  very  existence  of  the  Church  is  utterly  ignored.  It 
is  not  even  recognized  as  an  advisory  council.  The 
constituencies  who  have  to  bear  the  burdens,  and  who 
are  the  parties  immediately  interested  in  these  offices, 
are  not  so  much  as  consulted  in  their  removal.  But 
then  look  at  the  manner  in  which  such  removal  proceeds, 
"  In  all  these  instances,"  (speciQed  above)  "  the  manner 
of  removing  from  office  is  peculiar.    First:  It  is  summary, 

WITHOUT  ACCUSATION,  TRIAL,    OR   FORMAL  SENTENCE.       SoCOnd: 

It  is  for  nocriTTie,  and  generally  for  no  misdemeanor,  but  for 
being  'unacceptable.'  Third:  Most  of  the  removals  are  by 
a  sole  agent,  namely,  by  a  bishop  or  preacher,  WHOSE 
WILL  IS  OMNIPOTENT  IN  THE  PREMISES.— 
Fourth:  The  removing  officer  is  not  legally  obliged  to 
assign  any  cause  for  deposing.  If  he  does  so,  it  is  through 
courtesy,  and  not  as  oi  right.  Fifth:  The  deposed  officer 
has  no  appeal.  If  indiscreetly  or  unnecessarily  removed, 
12 


134  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

HE  MUST  SUBMIT,  for  there  is  no  trihmul  authorized  to 
cure  the  error  or  rectify  the  wrongs  Let  us  condense  it 
all  into  a  single  sentence.  The  manner  of  removing 
from  office  is  summary,  without  trial  or  accusation — is  for 
no  crime,  only  for  being  uTiacceptable — mostly  by  a  sole 
agent,  a  bishop  or  preacher,  whose  will  is  omnipotent  in 
the  premises,  and  who  is  not  bound  even  to  give  any  rea- 
son for  his  act — and  the  victim  of  his  tyranny  has  no  ap- 
peal; whether  justly  or  unjustly  treated,  he  must  submit! 
for  there  is  no  tribunal  to  rectify  the  wrong  ! !  All  this  was 
solemnly  set  forth  before  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States,  as  an 
exposition  of  Methodism  as  it  is,  and  the  author  of  it  was 
immediatel}'^  elevated  to  the  rank  of  a  bishop!  And  we 
are  required  to  believe  that  this  "peculiar"  "system  of 
surpassing  energy"  is  "worthy  of  all  eulogy!"  That  it 
beautifully  harmonizes  with  American  Democracy!  and 
that  he  who  cannot  see  the  ''^Democratic  element"  in  this 
system,  must  possess  a  "judgment  overpowered  by  a 
strange  prejudice!"  There  are  some  drafts  upon  hu- 
man credulity  that  cannot  well  be  honored.  Now,  in 
regard  to  the  dogma  of  transubstantiation,  when  a  Ca- 
tholic priest  gravely  assures  us  that  tUe  piece  of  bread 
he  holds  in  his  hand  has  been  transmuted  by  some 
strange  spiritual  hocus  'pocus,  into  the  veritable  flesh  of 
a  body  that  was  crucified  eighteen  hundred  years  ago, 
our  eyes,  touch,  taste,  aud  smell  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, it  strikes  us  that  it  would  be  perfectly 
respectful  to  decline  the  honor  of  implicit  faith.  Or  in 
regard  to  baptismal  regeneration;  if  an  Episcopalian 
priest  or  bishop  should  dip  his  hand  in  water,  and  sprin- 
kle a  few  drops  in  the  face  of  an  unconscious  child,  and 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  135 

pronounce  meanwhile  the  solemn  baptismal  formulary, 
and  then  gravely  beseech  us  to  believe  that  that  child, 
although  the  instant  before  this  ceremony  was  perform- 
ed, was  beyond  the  covenant  of  mercy,  is  now  regenerat- 
ed and  grafted  into  Christ,^^ — without  intending  the  slight- 
est disrespect  to  his  reverence,  we  would  persist  in 
saying,  Non  ego  crediilus  illi — we  have  not  been  able  to 
see  where  the  Divine  being  has  assigned  to  a  few  drops 
of  water  an  agency  which  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  when  a  Methodist  Episcopal  clergy- 
man entreats  us  to  believe  that  a  governmental  economy, 
in  which  a  miUion  and  a  half  of  subjects,  (we  take  the 
reputed  membership  of  that  Church)  have  no  more  voice 
in  its  legislative  or  administrative  polity,  than  the  sub- 
jects of  the  Czar,  except  the  bare  privilege  of  submission 
— an  economy  in  which  the  will  of  its  self-constituted 
rulers  "  is  omnipotent  in  the  premises,"  there  being  no 
''ixih-anaX"  "to  rectify  the  wrong, ''^ — all  we  have  to  say 
is,  ''Pardon  us  if  we  knoio  no  such"  Democracy,  "if  ice 
comprehend  no  such"  Repcblicaxism. 

And  that  our  Methodist  brethren  may  see  that  we  are 
not  alone  in  this  matter;  that  they  may  know  what 
their  Presbyterian  brethren  think  of  this  "peculiar" 
"  Democratic  element"  in  their  Church  organization — 
we  will  close  this  part  of  our  argument  by  introducing 
a  short  extract  from  an  article  in  the  "  Calvinistic  Ma- 
gazine," written,  we  believe,  by  its  then  editor.  Rev.  F. 
A.  Eoss,  now  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
city  of  ITuntsville,  in  this  State.  If  they  complain  of 
what  a  Baptist  editor  has  written,  what  will  they  say 
when  they  read  the  following  from  a  Presbyterian  editor. 
Referring  to  the  aforesaid  exposition  of  Methodism,  by 


136  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Mr.  Hamline,  he  says:  "  Look  at  it,  ye  members  of  the 
Methodist  Church.  Look  at  it.  What!  A  system,  'worthy 
of  all  eulogy."  What  say  you,  genius  of  America?  She 
answers,  'The  Methodist  system  is  death  to  all  the  institu- 
tions for  which  Washington  fought  and  freemen  died!' 
What  says  the  Gospel?  The  Gospel  tells  us  'The  Me- 
thodist system  is  Anti-Christ— /or  it  is  the  very  identical 
priestly  2wwer  which  has  crushed  and.  trodden  underfoot  the 
liberty  tvhcrewith  Christ  doth  make  free  in  every  age  of  the 
worldP"       *******  * 

Turn  we  now  to  Brother  *Hamill's  fourth  letter.  And 
first  of  all,  we  cannot  but  congratulate  our  brother  on 
the  evident  improvement  in  the  tone  of  the  present  as 
compared  with  his  last  communication.  Its  spirit  is 
honorable  alike  to  his  head  and  his  heart.  "Richard  is 
himself  again."  Its  logic  is,  however,  as  yet  an  open 
question. 

"Methodism,"  then,  is  "fair  as  the  sun,  clear  as 
the  moon,  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners!"  How 
"fair"  and  how  "clear"  it  is,  we  have  been  trying  to 
discover.  The  father  of  it  avers,  in  reference  to  that 
feature  of  it  we  are  discussing,  viz.,  its  Episcopacy,  that 
ho  had  rather  bo  called  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a 
scoundrel,  than  to  be  called  a  bishop!  And  if  the  re- 
nowned John  Wesley  could  not  steadfastly  gaze  upon 
its  "-fair"  and  "clear''  disc,  without  "  starting  and  shud- 
dering," v/e  suppose  it  must  have  been  from  the  super- 
abundance of  the  "  terrible"  which  it  reflected.  Of  this 
the  reader  will  be  able  to  form  a  better  estimate  as  we 
proceed  in  our  analysis  of  this  "system  of  surpassing 
energy." 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  131 

It  seems  that  our  brother  cannot  comprehend  the  dif- 
ference between  men  and  jirinciples.  If  we  express 
a  personal  regard  to  the  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  at  the  same  time  enlarge 
our  throat  to  the  dimensions  of  "  our  Episcopacy,"  we 
have  a  wonderful  knack  of  "  twisting."  On  this  prin- 
ciple, how  supremely  must  Paul  have  despised  Peter, 
when  at  "  Antioch  he  withstood  him  to  the  face,  because 
he  was  to  be  blamed."  Personal  regard  cannot  be  in- 
dulged without  involving  fellowship  in  all  the  principles 
of  the  object  of  it!  and  therefore  the  command,  requir- 
ing us  to  "  love  our  enemies"  must  seal  our  lips  in  si- 
lence as  to  their  errors  and  sins!  We  cannot  expose 
these  without  the  charge  of  "  twktijication."  (Brother 
Hamill  has  declared,  and  is  determined  to  maintain  his 
independence  of  Webster.) 

We  were  arguing  the  congruity  between  Methodist 
Episcopacy  and  English  Episcopacy,  and  not  English 
vionarchy,  Brother  Ilamill.  True,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  you  mistook  Episcopacy  for  monarchy — they  are  ^:>a»" 
nohile  fratrum, — and  the  mistake  you  made  is  quite 
natural  and  significant. 

Our  brother  plies  the  weapons  furnished  in  Baptist 
Noel's  armory  with  singular  dexterity.  He  cannot  draw 
too  frequently  on  that  rich  collection  of  Episcopal  facts. 
But  we  opine  if  "our  Episcopacy"  had  a  voice,  it  would 
ring  a  most  plaintive  appeal  in  his  ear — "From  such  a 
defence  may  the  good  Lord  deliver  me!"  Right  glad 
are  we,  too,  that  something  can  provoke  our  good  bro- 
ther to  laugli.  AVe  are  happy  to  know  that  the  frown 
which  lowered  ominously  upon  his  brow  so  recently,  is 
BO  soon  succeeded  by  the  peals  of  merriment.     That 


138  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

constitutional  officers  sliould  not  be  privates,  is  provok- 
ingly  ludicrous!  is  it? 

Brother  Hamill  represents  us  as  saying,  that  "  an  Es- 
tablished Church  in  England  is  more  Democratic  than 
the  Methodist  Church  in  the  United  States."  The  reader 
will  remember  that  we  said,  if  he  the  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill, 
(not  ^ve)  could  prove  that  we  were  mistaken  in  every 
point  of  the  analogy  we  drew  between  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Established  Episcopal  Church 
of  England,  he  would  succeed  in  proving  that  an  Estab- 
lished Church  in  a  monarchical  government  was  more 
Democratic  than  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
free  Commonwealth  of  the  United  States.  The  perver- 
sion is  so  transparent  that  we  really  cannot  complain 
of  it. 

As  to  "  our  evading  the  issue,  and  refusing  to  retract" 
the  points  specified,  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  "  let  the 
public  judge  between  us."  We  should  be  inclined  to  in- 
dulge in  Bro.  Hamill's  exercise  a  little,  when  he  speaks 
of  "  evading  issues,"  but  we  never  could  laugh  on  paper. 

It  is  complained  that  we  have  asserted,  that  the 
"  bishops  and  clergy  have  imposed  articles  of  faith  upon 
their  people  without  their  consent."  Now,  if  the  con- 
verse of  this  is  true,  it  can  be  proved.  Who  composed 
the  General  Conference  at  which  the  doctrines,  discipline, 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
were  adopted?  The  bishops  and  travelling  preachers. 
Were  they  delegated  by  their  Churches  to  do  this? 
Why,  this  is  not  pretended.  The  lay  membership  of 
that  Church  had  no  more  connection  with  its  govern- 
mental, doctrinal,  and  disciplinary  organization,  than 
the  aborigines  of  this  continent.     And  from  that  time  to 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  139 

this,  the  bishops  and  clerg-y  are  the  source  and  fountain 
of  all  power,  spiriliial  and  temporal,  which  the  system 
involves.  And  it  militates  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
against  this  fact,  that  persons,  in  joining  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  impliedly  submit  themselves  to  its 
entire  economy.  This  proves  no  more  for  Episcopacy 
than  it  does  for  Roman  Catholicism.  The  question  re- 
curs in  each  instance: — Was  the  original  authority 
which  established  that  economy  a  usurped  authority? 
If  not,  whence  did  it  emanate?  —  from  God  or  his 
Churches?  If  from  God,  then  the  apostles  of  Method- 
ism were  inspired,  and  the  "  Discipline"  is  of  equal  au- 
thority with  the  New  Testament.  If  from  the  Churches, 
show  us  the  authority,  and  we  are  dumb. 

There  is  a  singular  fatality  attending  Bro.  Hamill's 
quotations.  He  has  treated  us  to  a  couplet  from  Hudi- 
bras,  which  so  beautifully  illustrates  "  our  Episcopacy," 
that  we  cannot  I'csist  the  temptation  to  allude  to  it. 
There  are  those,  doubtless, 

"  Who  think  religion  is  intended. 
For  nothing  else  but  to  be  mended.'' 

But  who  arc  they?  Certainly  not  those  who  have  no 
ecclesiastical  legislatures — who  suppose  that  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  did  all  the  legislation  necessary  for  the 
churches  in  all  ages — who  believe  that  the  constitution, 
doctrines,  and  discipline,  of  these  churclics  were  drafted 
by  the  pen  of  inspiration,  and  therefore  not  likely  to  be 
"  mended,"  by  general  conferences,  or  any  other  ecclesi- 
astical assemblage.  Who  are  they,  then,  who  suppose 
that  religion  maybe  "mended?"  For  seventy-one  years, 
the   General  Conference  has  been  tinkering  with  the 


140  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

"  Discipline,"  and  up  to  the  last  session  of  that  body, 
they  were  still  mending  it.  Some  twenty-one  changes 
were  made  in  it,  we  learn,  at  that  time.  "  Our  Episco- 
.pacy,"  however,  has  been  most  sacredly  guarded  through 
all  these  changes. 

As  we  expect  to  discuss  the  "  Book  Concern,"  with 
the  "  appurtenances  thereto  annexed,"  in  our  next  arti- 
cle, we  shall  decline  any  response  to  this  part  of  Bro. 
Hamill's  letter  for  the  present. 

Episcopacy  may  well  afford  to  place  her  mitre  upon 
the  heads  of  such  men  as  McKendree  and  Bascom,  if 
for  nothing  else  to  purchase  an  indemnity  from  their 
merciless  castigations.  Now  do  not  throw  up  your 
hands  in  holy  horror,  Bro.  Hamill,  when  we  say  that  the 
mitre,  when  placed  upon  the  head,  will  sometimes  have 
the  mysterious  power  of  paralj'zing  the  tongue.  It  some- 
times has  the  effect  that  your  favorite  Hudibras  ascribes 
to  money: 

"  What  makes  all  doctrines  plain  and  clear? 
About  two  hundred  pounds  a  year. 
And  that  which  was  prov"d  true  before. 
Proved  false  again  ? — two  hundred  more." 

Let  us  now  look  into  Bro.  Hamill's  "  parallels." — In 
the  first  column  we  find  John  Wesley's  name  attached 
to  two  ^sentences,  which  we  doubt  not  are  genuine, 
though  we  could  wish  that  he  had  given  us  chapter  and 
verse.  The  first  is  this — "  I  firmly  believe  I  am  a 
scriptural  Episcopos  (bishop),  as  much  as  any  man  in 
England. — John  Wesley."  And  so  every  settled  pastor 
of  a  Church  on  earth  might  have  said  the  same,  with 
equal    propriety.      Suppose    our    mutual    friend    and 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  141 

esteemed  brother,  Rev.  T.  Root,  pastor  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  this  place,  should  say  that  he  was  as 
scriptural  a  bishop  as  any  man  on  the  American  conti- 
nent, would  it  bo  legitimate  to  publish  it  to  the  world 
that  he,  Mr.  R.,  "preferred  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
Church  government  to  any  other?" — in  the  face,  too,  of 
a  solemn  declaration  addressed  to  a  Methodist  bishop, 
that  he  would  rather  be  called  "  a  knave,  a  rascal,  or 
scoundrel  than  to  be  called  a  bishop?"  Again:  If  in  the 
second  sentence,  Mr.  Wesley  uses  the  term  bishop  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  assumed  by  Messrs.  Asbury 
and  Coke,  Bro.  Hamill  has  only  succeeded  in  convicting 
his  venerable  spiritual  progenitor  of  talkmg  two  ways, 
thus: 

"  Their  father  in  the  Lord  may  "Men  may  call  me  a  Imave,^ 
be  called  the  bishop,  overseer  of  fool,  a  rascal,  or  a  scoundrel,  and  I 
them  all.  am  content;  but  thoy  shall  never 

JouN  "Wesley."        by  my  consent  call  me  a  bishop. 

John  Wesley." 

And  our  replj'  to  it  shall  be  in  the  language  of  Pas- 
cal: "  IIow  happy  is  it  to  have  to  do  with  people  that 
talk  pro.  aud  con.!  By  this  means  you  furnish  me  with 
all  I  wanted;   which  was,  to  make  you  confute  yojir selves." 

A  New  Testament  "  bishop  must  be  blameless,"  a 
Methodist  bishop  ought  to  be  blameless. 

His  second  column  contains  two  sentences  taken  al- 
ternately from  the  Methodist  Disciplibe,  and  a  Baptist 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  so  arranged  as  to  convey  the 
impression  that  the  extract  from  the  Baptist  Confession 
endorses  the  one  from  the  Methodist.  We  do  not  wish  to 
charge  Bro.  Ilamill  with  garbling  the  extract  from  the 


142  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Baptist  Confession,  for  this  would  seem  unkind;  but  let 
the  reader  glance  at  this  extract  of  our  brother,  and 
read  the  following,  which  is  the  veritable  paragraph  he 
has  mutilated:  "  9.  The  way  appointed  by  Christ  for 
the  calling  of  any  person  fitted  and  gifted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  unto  the  ojSice  of  bishop,  or  elder  in  a  Church,  is, 
that  he  he  chosen  thereunto  by  the  common  suffrages  of  the 
Church  itsdf;  and  solemnly  set  apart  by  fasting  and 
prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands  by  the  eldership  of  the 
Church,"  &c.  The  election  and  consecration  of  a  Me- 
thodist bishop  at  a  General  Conference  hy  the  clergy,  and 
the  election  and  ordination  of  a  New  Testament  bishop 
by  the  Church  and  its  eldership,  are  as  far  asunder  as 
the  east  is  from  the  west.  And  yet  the  latter  is  so  mu- 
tilated and  tacked  on  to  the  other,  as  if  there  were  a 
particle  of  affinity  between  them!  Surely,  surely,  it 
cannot  be  the  defence  of  truth  which  requires  a  resort 
to  such  expedients  as  this. 

We  suppose  Mr.  Wesley  knew  what  construction  to 
place  upon  his  own  act,  and  what  he  was  writing  when 
he  addressed  the  letter  to  bishop  Asbury,  /owr  years  after 
he  and  Dr.  Coke  assumed  that  title.  It  is  a  little  singu- 
lar, that  when  he  makes  a  thrust  at  "our  Episcopacy,' 
it  is  all  "occasioned  by  the  misrepresentations  of  others;" 
while  in  every  other  respect  he  is  believed  and  obeyed 
almost  as  implicitly  as  if  he  were  inspired.  It  seems 
as  if  there  is  but  one  thing  on  earth  that  the  Methodist 
clergy  love  bettef  than  they  do  John  Wesley — and  that 
is  "  our  Episcopacy.''^  John  must  not  touch  that — if  he 
does,  why  "the  dear  old  man"  has  been  miserably 
duped. 

For  the  sake  of  unity  in  this  discussion,  we  have  tried 


^  METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  I43 

to  avoid  all  side  issues  up  to  this  time.  For  this  pur- 
pose, we  have  permitted  much  that  Brother  Haraill  has 
said  vitally  affecting  our  own  denomination,  to  pass 
without  comment.  But  a  sense  of  duty  constrains  us 
to  depart  from  this  course  at  this  stage  of  the  discus- 
sion— not  that  we  intend  to  he  drawn  from  the  main 
question — but  by  way  of  a  short  episode,  to  vindicate 
our  own  Church  polity  from  some  of  the  wildest  and 
most  puerile  attacks  it  has  ever  been  our  fortune  to  ob- 
serve. Our  brother  has  set  us  the  example  of  compar- 
ing the  relative  claims  of  Methodist  and  Baptist  Church 
government  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  American 
freemen.  We  are  willing,  therefore,  that  he  shall  have 
all  the  credit  and  honor  of  anj--  victor}'  he  may  obtain 
over  us  in  this  respect,  and  deposit  his  laurels  upon  the 
altar  of  "  our  Episcopacy." 

I.  The  first  question  that  suggests  itself  in  this  con- 
nection is,  Who  are  the  legitimate  constituency  of  a 
gospel  Church?  With  the  new  Testament  in  our  hands, 
there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  answering  this  question. 
Those  who  repent  of  their  sins,  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  publicly  profess  that  faith  by  submit- 
ting to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  In  other  words,  those 
who  have  been  "  born  of  the  Spirit — born  of  God — called 
to  be  saints — justified — sanctified."  We  prove  this, 
first,  from  the  commission — "  lie  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved ;" — and  secondly,  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Apostles  themselves  understood  it — 
"  They  that  gladly  received  His  word  were  baptized, 
and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."  "And  the  Lord  added  unto 
them  daily  such  as  should  he  saved."     "And  many  of 


144  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized," 
&c.,  &c.  The  trutli  is,  there  is  not  a  recorded  instance 
in  the  New  Testament  of  any  person  being  received 
into  the  Church  without  furnishing  reasonable  evidence 
that  he  had  exercised  "  repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  And  that  such 
and  such  only  were  the  constituency  of  all  the  Churches 
planted  by  the  Apostles,  is  evinced  from  the  additional 
fact,  that  all  the  Apostolic  epistles  are  addressed  to 
them  as  such — "  To  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ 
Jesus,  called  saints — beloved  of  God — the  faithful  in 
Christ  Jesus — the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus — faithful  breth- 
ren in  Christ — brethren  beloved — whose  faith  grew  ex- 
ceedingly," &c.,  &c.  No  man  can  doubt  that  if  the 
Apostles  uniformly  applied  such  terjns  as  these  to  the 
Churches  to  whom  they  directed  their  epistles,  they 
must  have  been  composed  professedly  at  least,  of  "  new 
creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  " — converted  to  God  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

II.  Tlie  second  question  to  be  considered  is,  Whether 
these  persons— these  saints — ^faithful  brethren  in  Christ 
Jesus,  &c.,  are  competent  to  govern  themselves.  If  they  are 
not,  who  on  earth  are  competent  to  the  task?  The  very 
object  of  the  gospel  economy  is  to  teach  man  this  lesson, 
and  to  enable  him  to  exemplify  it  in  his  relations  to  the 
Church.  Solomon  says,  "  He  that  ruleth  his  spirit  is 
greater  than  he  that  taketh  a  city."  Is  a  king  consid- 
ered competent  to  govern?  The  Christian  is  called  a 
king.  Is  a  priest?  He  is  called  also  a  priest.  The 
Christian  has  been  aptly  called  "  the  highest  style  of 
man."  Is  there  any  other  character  on  earth  superior 
to  him  in  this  respect,  to  whom  he  can  apply  for  guar- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  145 

dianship?  As  a  nation,  we  have  announced  the  doctrine 
to  an  astonished  world,  that  man  is  caimhle  of  self  govern- 
ment; and  shall  we,  in  our  ecclesiastical  organizations, 
nullify  that  doctrine  among  ourselves?  Shall  we  pro- 
claim on  our  civil  constitution  one  thing,  and  on  our 
ecclesiastical  constitutions  the  reverse?  We  repeat,  if 
Christians  are  not  competent  to  govern  themselves,  who 
beneath  the  canopy  of  heaven  are? 

III.  The  third  question  suggested  is,  "Whether  the 
New  Testament  has  inculcated  any  form  of  Church  go- 
vernment? If  it  has,  we  are  capable  of  discovering  it; 
if  it  has  not,  then  the  man  of  God  cannot  he  thoroughhj 

furnished  to  every  %oork.  Now,  we  affirm  that  the  New 
Testament  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  consti- 
tution of  a  gospel  Church;  that  the  governmental,  doc- 
trinal, and  disciplinary  economy  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  is  set  forth  in  that  holy  volume  so  luminously, 
"  that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err 
therein;"  that  "the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only,  is  the  re- 
ligion" of  Christians;  and  that  to  affirm  differently,  is 
either  to  charge  folly  upon  the  Triune  God,  or  unfaith- 
fulness upon  the  sacred  writers;  to  submit  ourselves  to 
the  blind  guidance  of  blind,  self-constituted  and  pre- 
sumptuous priests^  who  assume  the  prerogatives  of 
God  himself;  and  to  land  finally  within  the  crushing 
embraces  of  that  spiritual  Moloch,  the  Koman  Catholic 
hierarchy.  And  we  believe  that  this  holy  volume  teach- 
es tlie  doctrine  that  Christians  are  caj)ahle  of  governing 
themselves. 

IV.  The  fourth  and  last  question  that  wo  shall  now 
suggest,  arising  out  of  this  subject,  is  the  great  ques- 
Tio.v,  over  which  tlic  conflict  of  every  age  since  Episco- 

13 


116  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

pal  goverument  has  set  up  its  impious  claim  against 
Churcli  goverument,  lias  been  waged — and  it  is  the  ques- 
tion we  arc  now  discussing:  Do  the  Churches  belong  to 
the  ministry?  or  converselj' — Do  the  ministry  belong  to 
the  Churches?  We  give  the  question  this  double  form, 
so  as  to  present  to  the  reader  the  whole  subject  matter 
in  controversy  in  a  nut-sliell.  Episcopacy  maintains  an 
absolute  proprietorship  in  the  Churches;  assumes  to  es- 
tablish its  db'ctriues  and  discipline;  appoint  its  pastors; 
change  their  locations  at  discretion;  to  receive  and  sus- 
pend preachers  aa  necessity  may  require;  to  oversee  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  Church.  In  a 
word,  it  assumes  all  the  attributes,  rights,  privileges, 
and  immunities  of  a  supreme  irresponsible  government. 
Now,  in  opposition  to  all  these  extra-judicial  and  impi- 
ous claims  to  ecclesiastical  powers  and  prerogatives,  we 
maintain  that  the  Church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — 
called  in  tlie  scriptures  his  "body" — "the  Bride,  the 
Lamb's  wife"r^"  royal  priesthood,  holy  nation,  peculiar 
people,"  «&c.,  has  been  invested  with  all  the  prerogatives 
and  powers  which  her  ascended  Head  has  ever  confer- 
red upon  any  agency  under  heaven.  The  great  Magna 
Ckorta  of  our  spiritual  commonwealth  confers  upon  her, 
under  Christ,  the  sole  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  power. 
This  is  our  entrenchment.  It  has  becu  planned  by  infi- 
nite wisdom,  built  by  infinite  power,  and  guarded  by  in- 
finite goodness.  It  is  a  bulwark  of  strength  which  has 
withstood  tlic  lapse  of  ages  and  the  waste  of  empires, 
the  menaces  of  kings,  the  assaults  of  Episcopacy  and 
thunders  of  the  Vatican.  And  it  will  continue  to  tower 
in  majesty  and  glory  until  Daniel's  sublime  prophecy 
shall  be  fulfilled:     "  And  the  kingdom  and  dominion, 


METUODSIT  EPISCOrACY,  147 

and  the  greatnoss  of  the  kingdom  nndor  the  whole  hea- 
vens, shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the 
Most  ITigh,, whose  kingdom  is  an  everlasting"  kingdom, 
and  all  dominions  shalh  serve  and  obey  him."  Into  the 
hands  of  such  a  constituency,  it  is  safe  to  deposit  this 
power;  for  then  the  highest  gnaranties  that  heaven  can 
give  and  that  earth  can  receive  are  furnisiJied,  that  it 
will  be  wielded  rynlyfor  good.  The  truth  is,  according  to 
the  New  Testament,  the  Church  can  only  exist  to 
do  good.  The  very  moment  she  perverts  the  j^ower 
committed  to  her  hands,  to  base  and  unworthy  purpos- 
es, she  ceases  to  be  a  Church  of  Christ,  and  becomes  a 
sect  and  synagogue  of  Satan.  These  are  some  of  the 
essential  organic  elements  of  Baptist  Chutcb  polity. 
Are  thy  onti-Repuhlir/inl 

•  We  have  barely  t^juched  upon  these  topics;  but  oui» 
space  will  not  allow  us  to  expand  them.  Thi«  we  shall 
do  as  soon  as  the  present  discnission  is  disposed  of.*  A 
Single  remark  will  dispose  of  everything  Hro.  Hamill 
says  fn  regard  to  ministers'  and  deac^jns'  meetings,  as- 
sociations, conventions,  &c.  In  his  second  communica- 
tion, he  objected  to  such  assemblages  as  these  among 
the  Biiptists,  because  tTiey  were  mf:T(s]j  advisory  councils; 
in  his  present  one,  he  objects  to  one  of  these  meetings, 
recently  held  in  Tiiskegee,  because  its  action  on  a  cer- 
tain query,  "was  the  nearest  approach  to  taxation  pro- 
per and  almost  without  representation,  he  has  ever 
known   in   any  Church  in  our  free  country."     At  one 


•  We  are  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  aBmall  work  on  "Cliuroh 
Oovemm'jDt,"  which  we  proposw  offering  to  the  pabiic  in  a  f';w 
month>',  ii  11. 


148  A  DISCUSSION  ON  ^ 

time  they  are  merely  advisory  councils;  at  another,  they 
jpass  a  "decree,"  to  which,  if  the  Churches  submit,  they 
"bear  off  the  palm  from  all,  of  docility  and  submission 
to  the  powers  that  be  I"  Rather  hard  pressed  for  "ar- 
gument to  answer  argument."  Who  is  "twisting?"  And 
what  do  you  think,  reader,  was  this  terrible  crime 
against  "  our  free  country?"  First:  A  query  was  sug- 
gested by  a  certain  brother,  a  private  member,  to  this 
effect:  What  is  the  best  method  of  raising  the  funds  to 
defray  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  Church?  The  an- 
swer was,  that  each  man  ought  to  pay  in  proportion  to 
his  worth,  according  to  the  Divine  rule:  "Upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in 
store,  as  God  has  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no  gather- 
ings when  I  come." — 1st  Cor.  xvi.  2.-  Second:  Thatcovet- 
eousness  was  idolatry,  and  that,  in  the  judgment  of  that 
meeting,  no  idolater  ought  to  be  retained  in  the  Church. 
What  a  monstrous  offence  this!  How  shocking  to  the 
delicate  sensibilities  of  our  brother?  What  profound 
concern  does  he  manifest  for  the  honor  of  his  country? 
All  this,  too,  the  mere  expression  of  an  opinion  by  a  vo- 
luntary meeting!  A  privilege  guarantied  to  and  exer- 
cised by  every  public  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  this  free 
country,  upon  all  subjects  of  common  interest. 

We  suppose  that  we  must  inform  brother  Hamill  that 
all  forms  of  government  may  be  abused,  not  excepting 
Democracies.  It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  the  very  argu- 
ments he  is  using  against  the  Baptist  polity,  are  the  identical 
arguments  xchich  monarchists  have  ahcays  used  against  popu- 
lar government.  He  has  picked  up  a  few  cases  in  our 
histories,  in  which,  under  the  sttong  excitement  of  some 
vexed  question,  a  few  of  our  Churches  have  abused  their 


METBODIST  EPISCOPACY.  149 

power,  and  turns  these  against  us,  when  he  himself  will 
admit  that  they  are  the  exceptions  and  not  the  rule; 
just  as  the  apologists  for  royalty  catch  up  those  occa- 
sional outbreaks,  particularly  in  our  large  cities,  and 
construe  them  into  arguments  against  Republicanism. 
We  challenge  Brother  Ilamill  to  show  any  strifes  in  the 
Baptist  Churches,  more  dishonorable  to  the  Christian 
name,  or  more  destructive  of  human  rights,  than  those 
which  agitated  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1798 
— 1824;  '28,  and  '44 — and  then,  growing  out  of  the  last, 
the  humiliating  spectacle  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  versus  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
North,  before  the  United  States  Court  in  New  York,  in 
reference  to  the  "  mammon  of  unrighteousness,"  in  the 
famous  Book  Concern  lawsuit.  A  pretty  fair  evidence 
this,  that  Episcopacy  cannot  meet  every  emei'gency  it 
may  precipitate  upon  itself. 

Brother  Hamill  maintains,  that  wiihmU  Ike  vote  of  the 
laity,  none  can  be  received  into  the  itinerancy,  or  into 
the  Church.  In  the  Discipline,  are  the  following  ques- 
tions and  answers: 

Quest.  1.  IIow  is  a  preacher  to  be  received? 

Ans.  1.  By  the  Annual  Conference.  2.  In  the  interval 
of  a  Conference,  by  a  bishop,  or  the  presiding  elder  of 
the  district,  until  the  sitting  of  the  Conference. — p.  37. 

Again: 

Quest.  1.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  elder,  deacon,  or 
preacher,  who  has  tlic  especial  charge  of  a  circuit? 

Ans.  4.  To  appoint  all  the  leaders,  and  change  them 
whm  he  sees  it  necessary.  5.  TO  RECEIVE,  TRY,  AND 
EXPEL  members,  according  to  the  form  of  the  Dis- 
cipline. 


150  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Now,  Brother  Hamill  tells  us  one  thing,  the  Discip- 
line tells  us  the  very  reverse.  And  moreover  we  have 
been  present,  time  and  again,  at  the  reception  of  mem- 
bers into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  never 
have  we  heard  the  concurrence  of  the  Church  asked  in 
a  single  instance.  Perhaps  this  part  of  the  Discipline 
has  been  "mended." 

Father  Mercer's  wish  in  regard  to  a  general  meeting 
of  the  ministers  of  Georgia,  was  certainly  right  and 
proper.  But  that  the  expression  of  such  a  wish  should 
ever  have  been  metamorphosed  in  a  desire  for  a  "  Con- 
ference Episcopacy,"  we  are  sure  never  could  have  en- 
tered the  head  of  any  other  j)erson  except  a  Methodist 
clergyman.  A  voluntary  Conference  of  ministers,  for 
mutual  edification  and  spiritual  improvement,  is  quite  a 
different  thing  from  an  ecclesiastical  body  assembled  to 
enact,  expound,  and  enforce  laws  upon  the  Churches. 

We  had  intended  to  compare  the  constitution  of  Me- 
thodist Episcopacy  with  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  after  the  example  of  our  brother;  but  our  co- 
lumns are  filled,  and  we  are  obliged  to  defer  it,  for 
the  present.  Justice  to  our  correspondents  requires 
that  we  shall  give  at  least  every  other  issue  to  their 
communications.  We  think  we  shall  be  able  to  make 
this  part  of  the  subject  interesting  in  some  respects. 

As  our  brother  is  still  haunted  by  that  hydra-headed 
monster  among  the  Baptists,  "  close  communion,"  and  as 
he  still  seems  to  consider  that  it  has  much  to  do  in  re- 
flecting light  upon  the  "Democratic  clement,"  in  "our 
Episcopacy,"  we  suppose  we  must  devote  a  single  pa- 
ragraph to  the  elucidation  of  that  subject.  Our  position 
is,  that  the  Baptists  act,  not  only  upon  divine  authority. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  151 

but  also  upon  a  principle  adopted  by  every  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  on  eartb,  so  far  as  we  know.  That 
principle  is,  that  Baptism  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisife  to 
sacramental  commumon.  In  the  Methodist  Discipline, 
pages  86-87,  the  following  question  and  answer  occurs: 

Quest.  How  shall  we  prevent  improper  persons  from 
insinuating  themselves  into  the  Church? 

Ans.  1.  Let  none  be  received  into  the  Church  until 
they  are  recommended  b}^  a  leader  with  whom  they  have 
met  at. least  six  months  on  trial,  and  have  been  baptized. 

Probationers  may  be  allowed  to  commune,  "  provided 
they  have  been  baptized,"  says  Remington,  who  was 
twenty  years  an  elder  in  that  Church,  "  and  not  with- 
out." And  with  this  agrees  "  Ilibbiard  on  Baptism,"  a 
work  endorsed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  and  recognized  as  a  text-book 
for  young  ministers,  for  the  third  year  in  their  course  of 
study.  On  page  lt4,  he  says:  "  It  is  but  just  to  re- 
mark that  in  one  principle  the  Baptist  and  Pedo-baptist 
Churches  agree.  They  both  agree  in  rejecting  from 
communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and  in  denying  the 
rights  of  Church  fellowship  to  all  wtio  have  not  been 
baptized.  Valid  baptism  they  consider  as  essential  to 
constitute  visible  Church  membership.  This  aLso  we 
HOLD.  The  only  question,  then,  that  here  divides  us  is, 
what  is  essential  to  valid  baptism?"  The  conclusion,  then, 
is  inevitable,  if  we  are  to  believe  their  own  standard  au- 
thors, that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  hold  that 
baptism  is  a  pre-rcquisite  to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  the 
door  of  admission  into  the  Church.  If  Bro.  Hamill  will 
turn  to  the  213th  page  of  Hall's  Works,  a  volume  from 
which  he  has  often  quoted,  and  with  which  he  eecms 


152  '-  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

peculiarly  charmed,  be  will  receive  the  following  rebuke 
from  tbe  "eloquent  open-communion  Baptist:"  "  Let  it  be 
admitted  that  baptism  is,  under  all  circumstances,  a 
necessary  condition  of  Church  fellowship,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  Baptists  to  act  otherwise.  The  recollection 
of  this  may  suiSce  to  rebut  the  ridicule  and  silence  the 
clamor  of  those  who  loudly  condemn  the  Baptists  for  a 
proceeding-  which,  were  they  but  to  change  their  opinion 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  their  own  principles  would 
compel  them  to  adopt.  They  both  concur  in  a  common 
principle,  from  which  the  practice  deemed  so  offensive 
is  the  necessary  result.  Considered  as  an  argumentum 
ad  hominem,  or  an  appeal  to  the  avowed  principles  of  our 
opponents,  this  reasoning  may  be  sufficient  to  shield  us 
from  that  severity  of  reproach  to  which  we  are  often  ex- 
posed, nor  ought  we  to  be  censured  for  acting  upon  a 
system  (principle?)  which  is  sanctioned  by  our  accus- 
ers." With  what  sincerity  can  he,  or  indeed  the  Pedo- 
baptists  generally,  use  the  arguments  of  Robert  Hall 
on  the  communion  question;  they  all,  as  denominations, 
without  exception,  when  equally  with  Baptists,  repudi- 
ate his  premises?  No,  Brother  Hamill,  you  have  cer- 
tainly too  much  perception  not  to  see  that  the  legitimate 
question  at  issue  between  Baptists  and  Pedo-baptists, 
relates  to  baptism,  and  not  to  sacramental  communion. 
It  is  close  baptism,  not  close  communion. 

Our  brother  takes  leave  of  us  this  time  rather  abrupt- 
ly. A  slight  frown  gathered  upon  his  brow  1  Don't  be 
crusty,  Brother  Hamill.  If  you  have  succeeded  in 
"  answering  argument  with  argument,"  you  ought  to 
have  quit  in  a  better  humor.  We  are  not  conscious  of 
having  used  reproachful  or  insulting  language  to  him. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  153 

And  as  we  are  an  alien,  and  have  never  been  accus- 
tomed to  "  a  will  omnipotent  in  the  premises,"  we  an- 
swer his  clerical  command  of  "  silence!" — "  Pardon  us 
if  we  know  no  such  right,  if  we  comprehend  no  such 
privilege!" 


Will  Brother  Hamill  please  inform  us  distinctly,  whe- 
ther the  charge  of  falsehood  in  his  last  communication 
was  intended  to  refer  to  the  fads  we  "had  alleged 
against  Methodism"  up  to  the  time  of  the  writing  of  his 
article,  and  which  we  specified  in  our  answer;  or  whe- 
ther he  intended  it  to  refer  to  the  positions  in  the  ar- 
ticle from  the  "Watchman?"  We  are  actuated  by  the 
kindest  of  feelings  and  the  best  of  motives  in  making 
this  request. 

June  21st,  1855. 


154  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


LETTER  Y. 

METHODISM. 

THE   STRIKING  ANALOGY  BETWEEN  THE   METHODIST  CHURCH  GOV- 
ERNMENT AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Methodism  never  connected  with  the  State;  Bro.  Henderson's  just 
denunciation  of  persecution;  points  of  agreement;  Doctrine  of 
the  fathers  of  Trent  rejected;  Fuller's  view  of  the  extent  of  pas- 
toral care;  A  bold  admission;  True  credentials;  A  few  drops  or 
a  whole  pond  of  water  insufficient  to  regenerate;  Bro.  Hender- 
son's analysis  of  the  elements  of  a  Church  amended;  The  great 
Head  of  the  Church  legislates  for  her,  and  calls  her  officers;  Ex- 
ercise of  reason  not  superseded;  Conventions  and  creeds  necessary; 
The  absence  of  connectionalism  the  cause  of  disorder  in  the  Bap- 
tist Church;  Exceedingly  powerful  advice;  Agreement  with  Rob't 
Hall;  A  new  style  of  logic;  The  faith  of  Methodism  nOt  mended; 
Methodism  has  a  single  grand  platform  of  doctrines;  The  Baptist 
Church  may  have  ten  thousand  varying  creeds,  and,  therefore, 
cannot  with  accuracy  be  styled  The  Baptist  Church;  The  Hiwas- 
see  Baptist  Association;  Baptist  Churches  have  no  legislative 
representatives  at  all;  Their  practice  better  than  their  theory; 
Mr.  Wesley  did  prefer  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government; 
Unique  reasoning;  Mercer  favors  a  platform  similar  to  that  of 
Methodism;  An  interior  view  of  the  trial  of  members;  The  chal- 
lenge to  publish  a  deed  refused;  Power  of  bishops  in  civil  mat- 
ters; The  generosity  of  the  General  Conference  in  making  bishops 
of  its  enemies;  Chief  business  of  an  Annual  or  General  Confer- 
ence; Why  should  the  laity  act  in  two  Church  courts  upon  the 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  I55 

same  cases?  Distinction  between  the  act  of  distributing  minis- 
ters and  other  Church  business;  Baptist  itinerancy  again;  A  Geor- 
gia Baptist  Conference  of  ministers;  Father  Mercer;  Church  re- 
movals like  removals  by  the  President;  Bishop  Hamline's  view 
excessively  Republican;  A  chance  for  a  pretty  burst  of  indig- 
nation. 


Analogy  between  the  Jlethodist  Church  government  and  -the  United 
States  government,  shown  in  many  particulars;  Consistency  would 
require  the  ojiposers  of  Jleihodism  to  seek  the  destruction  of  our 
civil  Republic;  Other  Baptist  disoi-ders;  Melancholy  spectacle; 
Popery  in  the  Berlin  Baptist  Church,  as  their  poets  say;  Opposi- 
tion preaching;  Explanation;  glaring  errors;  Baptist  piety  will 
do  good  in  spite  of  its  defective  government;  Concession. 

"  Walk  about  Zion.  and  go  round  about  her;  tell  the  towers  thereof;  mark  ye  well 
her  bulwarks;  consider  her  palace,";  that  ye  may  tell  it  to  the  geueraliou  following." — 
Psalms. 

"  I  speak  as  to  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

Brother  Henderson: 

As  Methodism  has  never  for  a'moment  been  connect- 
ed with  the  State,  in  any  laud;  not  even  for  a  period  as 
brief  as  tlie  mad  sway  of  that  "  most  eminent  Baptist, 
Thomas  Muncer"  or  as  the  wild  and  licentious  tyranny 
of  John  Matthias,  and  John  Bocold  of  Leyden:  and  as 
she  has  therefore,  never  in  a  single  instance,  lent  her- 
self to  any  form  of  civil  government,  as  an  instrument 
of  oppression,  I  may  freely  leave  to  your  ready  pen,  the 
task  of  portraying  the  evils  of  the  union  of  Church  and- 
State;  and  of  denouncing  with  just  severity  the  cruel 
persecutions,  raised  from  time  to  time,  by  Cliurch  au- 
thorities, under  the  sanction  of  the  State. — My  only  aim 
will  be,  to  demonstrate  the  claims  of  Methodism  to  IJc- 
publicanism  of  the  highest  excellence. 


158  A   DISCUSSION  ON 

I  can  cordially  endoi'sc  all  you  have  to  say  upon  the 
value  of  controversy,  when  conducted  fairly,  amicably, 
and  in  a  Christian  spirit.  I  agree  with  you  still  further 
in  the  strongest  condemnation  of  any  Episcopacy,  which 
claims  to  be  a  third  order  in  the  ministry  of  Divine 
right,  in  which  alone  is  vested  the  right  of  ordination, 
and  of  g'overnment  in  the  Church,  and  without  which 
third  order,  as  some  sects  contend,  there  were  no  Church 
at  all,  even  though  the  incumbents  of  this  third  order, 
falsely  called  apostolic,  were  heretical  in  doctrine,  and 
impious  in  life;  as  the  Tridentine  fathers  affirmed,  that 
"  a  bishop  might  become  a  priest  of  Jupiter,  or  a  priest 
of  Baal,  and  still  be  a  priest  of  Jesus  Christ."  (Camp. 
Eccles.  Lects.)  Such  assumptions  I  regard  as  anti- 
Christian,  and  as  the  very  corner-stone  of  the  Papal 
hierarchy. 

Methodists  do  not  claim  ordination  from-  a  higher 
source  than  a  presbyter,  called  also  in  the  Scriptures,  a 
bishop;  which  latter  appellation  with  us  is,  by  custom 
only  and  not  by  divine  appointment,  restricted  to  the 
designation  of  him  whom  we  elect  to  be  the  primus  inter 
pares — first  among  equals;  like  the  Angel  of  the  Church 
of  Ephesus,  who  was  first  among  the  associate  bishops 
of  Ephesus.  In  this  sort  of  presidency  .or  moderator- 
ship,  involving  in  a  modified  sense,  what  Paul  had — 
"  the  care  of  all  the  Churches" — there  can  be  nothing  in 
conflict  with  the  qualifications  of  a  bishop,  as  described 
in  the  Bible.  Your  great  Fuller  says,  "Nor  would  the 
influence  of  the  first  missionaries  be  confined  to  a  single 
congregation,  but  by  a  kind  of  parental  authority, 
would  extend  *to  all  the  societies  that  might  be  raised 
by  means  of  their  labors." — (Bap.  Lib.  vol.  iii.  p.  330.) 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  151 

I  Avill  make  the  still  bolder  admission,  that  I  do  not 
care  to  cJaim  a  place  even  in  a  succession  of  Presbytc- 
rial  ordinations,  running  back  to  apostolic  times:  for 
all  successions  at  the  hands  of  men,  have  come  to  us 
through  corrupt  channels.  Give  me  direct  succession 
from  heaven,  by  the  Spirit's  call,  entitling  me  to  minis- 
terial credentials;  and  then,  as  a  matter  of  order  and 
expediency  merely,  let  it  be  acknowledged  by  the  laity, 
and  endorsed  by  a  prayerful  imposition  of  hands  of  holy 
brethren. 

I  do  concur  with  you  heartily  also,  in  rejecting 
the  absurd  doctrine,  that  a  few  drops  of  water,  or  even 
a  whole  pond  of  water,  can,  by  the  sprinkling  or  the 
immersion,  either  of  an  infant,  or  an  adult,  "  perform 
tlie  work  uniformly  ascribed  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."     Thiis  far  I  suppose  we  are  of  one  mind. 

Your  analysis  of  the  elements  of  a  Church,  is  partially 
correct,  but  may  need  some  emendation.  Let  us  see. — 
What  is  a  Church?  Ans.:  "  A  company  of  men  having 
the  form,  and  seeking  the  power  of  godliness,  united  to 
help  each  other  to  work  out  their  own  salvation." 
Secondly:  Are  they  competent  to  govern  themselves? 
Ans.:  They  are,  within  certain  limitations:  First,  that 
Christ  alone  can  frame  tlieir  fundamental  laws;  and 
next,  that  the  spirit  of  God  sliall  choose  their  ministers 
or  overseers;  but  these  things  being  done  for  them  by 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  (for  in  these  things  Church 
goverrmicnt  is  essentially  different  from  civil  govern- 
ment), they  may  then  judge  who  are  called  by  Christ 
to  tlie  holy  ofTicc — to  bear  some  sort  of  rule  in  the 
Church  of  God,  as  Paul  saith,  "Remember  them  which 
have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the 
14 


158  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

word  of  God, — and  may  do  also  whatever  else  is  neces- 
sary to  good  government.  Thirdly:  Has  the  New  Tes- 
tament inculcated  any  form  of  Church  government? 
Ans.:  "The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary 
to  salvation,"  yet  they  do  not  supersede  the  necessity 
for  the  legitimate  exercise  of  reason;  nor  do  they  go 
into  detail  to  such  an  extent,  as  to  make  void  the  func- 
tions of  associations,  conferences^  synods,  and  conven- 
tions; and  in  view  of  the  brevity  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
variety  of  mental  character,  the  fallibility  even  of  good 
men,  and  the  propriety  of  securing  harmony  of  action, 
the  common  sense  of  all  ages  has  dictated  the  necessity 
of  drawing  up  symbols  of  faith,  called  creeds,  articles, 
or  confessions  of  faith,  to  serve  as  points  of  union  among 
Christians,  and  as  defences  against  the  encroachments 
of  error.  Fourthly' :  Do  the  Churches  belong  to  the 
ministry,  or  the  ministry  to  the  Churches?  Ans.: 
Neither;  but  both  if  faithful,  to  the  Lord,  who  placed 
those  called  by  His  Spirit  to  the  ministry,  "  over  us  in 
the  Lord."— Eph.  I,  v.  13. 

A  government  of  this  description  is  certainly  in  no 
wise  anti-Republican;  nevertheless,  to  that  form  in 
which  these  elements  exist  in  the  Baptist  Church,  there 
is  wanting  that  beautiful  connectionalism,  with  its 
checks  and  balances,  which  makes  Methodism  so  close 
an  imitation  of  our  civil' Republic.  It  is  this  want  of 
government,  properly  so  called,  which  renders  the  Bap- 
tist Church  so  unlike  our  federal  government,  and  which 
produced  the  terrible  disorders  in  your  Georgia  and  Ala- 
bama Churches,  referred  to  in  my  last  communication. 
Your  lame  apology  for  those  disorders;  for  the  wretch- 
ed anarchical  legislation  lamented  by  your  own  historian; 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  159 

foi"  the  existence  of  that  "  infernal  spirit  which  gets  in- 
to every  Baptist  community,  however  small,"  if  your 
last  Convention  is  correct;  and  for  the  exceedinglij j^ower- 
ful  advice  given  in  your  Tuskegce  legislation  on  taxa- 
tion; which  advice  threatens  exclusion  against  any  of 
your  members  who  dare  refuse  such  inquisitorial  tax, 
I  think  it  unnecessary  to  disturb.  I  shall  not  tear  away 
that  fig-leaf  concealment  of  your  nakedness. 

I  am  happy  to  inform  you,  furthermore,  that  I  agree 
with  the  great  Robert  Hall  upon  the  question  of  close 
communion;  I  concur  with  him  most  heartily,  in  both 
his  premises,  and  conclusion.  Whenever  I  can  accredit 
any  man  as  a  true  minister  of  Christ,  in  the  highest 
functions  of  the  ministry,  namely,  preaching  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  I  will  freely  invite  him  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  me,  even  were  he  baptized  by  a  Papist,  or 
never  baptized  at  all.  I  know  of  no  Methodist  minister 
who  would  be  guilty  of  the  absurd  inconsistency  of  re- 
pelling, on  the  ground  of  baptism,  whether  valid  or  not, 
from  the  Lord's  table,  one  whom  he  himself  acknow- 
ledged as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ. 

You  still  cling  fondly  to  the  allegation,  that  in  our 
free  land,  where  every  one  may  worship  God  under  his 
own  vine  and  fig  tree,  "  we  impose  articles  of  faith  upon 
our  people  without  their  consent;  if  it  is  not  so,  the  con- 
verse can  be  proved,"  namely,  "  the  people  frame  them." 
Is  is  true,  that  if  the  people  do  not  frame  articles  of 
faith,  these  articles  are  imposed  on  them  without  their 
consent,  when  they  voluntarily  subscribe  to  them?  !  ! 
This  is  sheer  nonsense.  Did  preachers  manufacture 
them?  By  no  means;  for  we  acknowledge  none  but 
Christ  as  the  legislator  of  the  Christian  Church;  and 


160  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

both  preachers  and  people  believe  God  himself  revealed 
these  doctrines  in  his  word.  This  proving  of  the  con- 
verse, is  a  style  of  logic  peculiarly  your  own.  Hedge, 
Blair,  Whateley,  and  other  logicians,  had  not  discovered 
that  if  a  particular  proposition  be  not  true,  the  converse 
must  be  true.  It  is  unquestionably  Hendersonian,  and 
worthy  of  a  copyright.  Look  at  its  application  to  cur- 
rent topics.  "  It  is  a  very  hot  day,  sir."  "  No,  sir,  it  is 
only  moderately  warm  for  the  season."  Well,  sir,  if  it 
is  not  a  very  hot  day,  the  converse  must  be  true—  it  is  a 
very  cold  day."  Most  lucid  logic  1  Our  fathers  taught 
that  the  Holy  Scriptures  contained  all  things  necessary 
to  salvation  (Dis.);  when  they  preached  the  word,  our 
people,  like  the  Bereans,  searched  the  Scriptures  to  see 
whether  these  things  were  so;  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
was  glorified  in  the  voluntary  addition  to  our  Church  of 
the  multitudes  who  would  enjoy  this  salvation;  and  both 
bishops  and  people  have  failed  to  discover,  during  the 
existence  of  American  Methodism,  atiy  necessity  for 
mending  our  articles  of  faith. 

It  is  true,  the  Methodist  Church,  like  the  Presbyterian 
and  other  Churches,  has  but  a  single  grand  platform  of 
doctrines  for  our  entire  membership;  one  God,  one  faith, 
one  baptism  into  Christ's  death,  (not  into  his  burial,  for 
his  burial  was  a  mere  circumstance,  in  no  wise  essen- 
tial to  the  atonement.)  We  do  not,  therefore,  upon  the 
organization  of  every  Church,  or  every  Conference,  call 
upon  our  members  to  form  a  new  set  of  articles  of  faith ; 
if  we  did,  the  articles  thus  framed  might  be  eighteen 
centuries  too  late;  and  then  our  twelve  thousand  Me- 
thodist Churches  might  have  as  many  varying  creeds, 
agreeing  in  some  points,  and  differing  in  others,  as 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  161 

there  are  Churches.     In  that  event,  it  would  be  as  great 
a  fallacy  to  style  these  thousands  of  our  Churches,  with 
their  varying  creeds,  the  Methodist  Church,  as  it  is  to 
give  the  appellative  which  denotes  unity,  namely,  the 
Baptist  Church,  to  the  ten  thousand  Churches,  having 
frequently  dissimilar  creeds,  which  agree  with  you  upon 
questions  of  baptism.     Hence,  in  strictness  of  speech, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  Baptist  Church;  un- 
less it  be  some  particular  society  claiming  that  title; 
for  common   sense   teaches,    that   when   thousands   of 
Churches  severally  try  their  skill  at  creed-making,  and 
manufacturing  so   many  distinct  confessions  of  faith, 
they  cannot  be  one  Church,  unless  difference  and  unity 
mean  the  same  thing.     This  is  the  rather  true,  when 
we  consider  that  every  one  of  fliese  Churches  claims 
independent  jurisdiction   in  every  respect,   as  the  mi- 
nutes of  the  last  Hiwassec  Baptist  Association,  N.   C, 
in  the  following  language  testify:  "  We  have  no  high- 
sounding  titles,  as  pope,  cardinals,  ruling  or  presiding 
elders,  synods,  assemblies,  or  conferences,  to  hear  and 
decide  upon  appeals,  and  to  pass  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.    We  meet  together  for  mutual  com- 
fort and  edification,  not  to  decide  upon  appeals,  nor  to 
make  laws." — Carolina  Baptist,  June  6th. 

Now,  I  humbly  submit  it  to  your  good  judgment, 
whether  the  members  of  numerous  Churches  thus  go- 
verned, with  their  several  distinctive  peculiarities,  and 
without  any  law-making  department,  properly  so  called, 
for  tliO  aggregate  Cliurches,  and  hence,  of  course,  with- 
out any  representatives  at  all,  whether  lay  or  clerical, 
invested  with  legislative  power,  can  with  any  accuracy 
be  styled  the  Baptist  Church?     I  think  not.     I  subnnt 


162  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

also,  that  where  there  is  no  legislature — and  your  own 
authorities  tell  us  3'^ou  have  none — there  can  be  no  le- 
gislative representatives;  so  that  after  all  your  invec- 
tives against  our  representation,  it  turns  out,  that  in 
your  anomalous  system,  neither  your  ministry  nor  your 
people  have  any  representation  at  all. 

Nevertheless,  I  frankly  admit  the  practice  of  your 
Churches  is  better  than  your  theory.  The  common 
sense  of  your  people  ignores  the  theory  of  your  govern- 
ment, and  by  extra  legislative  and  extra  judicial  acts, 
secures  in  ordinary  cases  the  benefits  of  government. 
But  in  all  unusual  or  difEcult  cases,  your  Churches  are 
utterly  at  fault;  and  the  good  and  wise  among  you,  like 
Father  Mercer,  of  Georgia,  and  the  Baptist  historian, 
Holcombe,  of  Alabama,  bewail  in  hopeless  bitterness 
the  sad  dissensions,  distractions,  divisions,  anarchy  and 
despotic  ads  of  legislation  of  your  people.  We  have 
no  desire  to  frame  the  Methodist  Church  government 
after  the  pattern  of  this  system  of  anarchy  and  confu- 
sion, inaccurately  styled  Baptist  Church  Government. 
It  is  by  far  too  much  unlike  our  federal  government,  to 
suit  the  Republican  spirit  of  Methodism. 

You  have  charged  our  bishops  with  duplicity,  in  affirm- 
ing that  Mr,  Wesley  preferred  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
Church  government  to  any  other.  Your  proof  is,  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  objecting  to  the  title  of  bishop. 
I  showed  you  that  even  the  Baptist  Discipline  recog- 
nizes the  title  of  bishop,  and  that  Mr.  Wesley  consider- 
ed it  a  scriptural  synonym  for  presbyter,  though  he  pre- 
ferred we  should  not  use  it,  because  it  had  been  un- 
righteously appropriated  by  prelacy,  from  which  our 
brethren  reclaimed  it,  and  restored  it  to  its  original 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  163 

sense — an  act  commended  in  the  Life  of  Wesley,  by 
Moore,  who  first  published  the  much  misrepresented 
Asbury  letter.  Mr.  Wesley  did  prefer  the  Episcopal 
mode  of  Church  g-overnraent.  The  Minutes  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  in  America,  were  published 
six  months  after  their  adoption,  at  Mr.  Wesley's  press, 
and  uflder  his  eye;  and  Dr.  Coke  defended  them  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  presence,  and  without  contradiction,  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  done  nothing  without  the  direction 
of  Mr.  Wesley;  and  for  four  years  we  were  styled  a 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  before  Mr.  Wesley  reprov- 
ed Asbury  for  allowing  himself  to  be  called  bishop. — 
(Stevens'  Church  Polity,  p.  100.)  So  much  for  garbling 
our  Church  documents. 

I  have  informed  you  that  every  itinerant  is  constitut- 
ed such  by  two  distinct  acts  of  the  members,  and  that 
the  suffrages  of  the  laity  are  indispensable  to  every 
Church  act,  in  everyone  of  the  thousands  of  our  Churches; 
and  that  no  bishop,  nor  even  preacher  in  charge,  can  so 
much  as  vote  in  the  trial  of  a  member.  You  tell  us  the 
Discipline  says  the  revefse  of  this;  that  the  preacher  is 
received  by  the  Annual  Conference,  &c.  Very  true, 
sir;  the  Annual  Conference  does  receive  preachers.  It 
would  be  singular  Republicanism  which  could  force 
them  to  appoint  preachers  to  the  pastorate  whom  they 
thought  unworthy.  But  then,  if  j-ou  were  better  ac- 
quainted with  our  Discipline,  you  would  learn  that  it 
requires  candidates  f(;r  the  itinerancy  to  be  licensed 
first  by  the  people,  and  tlien  recommended  by  the  Quar- 
terly Conference;  without  which  license  and  recom- 
mendation, the  Conference  can  receive  none  into  the 
itinerancy.      Uuw  sadly  you  have  mistaken  the  charac- 


164  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ter  of  our  entire  system.  Your  reverse  logic  is  of  a 
piece  with  your  converse  logic.  Unique  specimens  of 
reasoning. 

Let  your  own  Mercer  instruct  you  into  the  propriety 
of  our  course.  "The  ministry  is  to  ministers,  what  the 
Church  is  to  common  brethren;  and  a  man  might  as 
soon  be  introduced  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Ohurch 
without  being  received  by  the  members  of  the  Church, 
as  any  one  can  be  brought  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
ministry  Avithout  being  received  by  the  ministry." — Me- 
moirs, p.  453.  Again:  he  fixes  the  minimum  number 
who  may  constitute  a  Church,  at  seven;  and  then,  the 
ministerial  office  being  elective,  he  says,  "In  that  case, 
not  seven,  but  four  against  three,  and  these  three  may 
be  the  strength  of  the  Church,  appoint  one  of  them- 
selves to  the  office  of  gospel  minister.  Is  it  possible 
that  such  an  appointment  can  give  to  any  one  an  au- 
thoritative claim  on  all  Churches  and  ministers,  to  their 
cordial  acceptance  and  brotherly  companionship?  Be- 
sides the  door  it  would  throw  open  to  vile  speculation, 
and  base  electioneering.  Once  establish  the  rule,  that  the 
Church  has  the  only  and  sole  authority  to  induct  into 
the  ministerial  office,  and  that  it  is  elective,  and  you  have 
opened  the  flood-gates  to  error,  and  exposed  the  Church 
to  feuds  and  destruction." — (p.  454.)  Well  spoli^n, 
Brother  Mercer,  though  you  have  come  upon  the  plat- 
form of  Methodism  to  utter  it. 

Our  ministers  do  summon  offenders  to  trial ;  still  an 
interior  riew  of  our  Discipline  would  show  you  that  we 
try  them  by  members  onlj'.  As  for  what  j'ou  may  or 
may  not  have  heard  of  the  concurrence  of  members, 
asked  on  receiving  members,  I  cannot  answer;  but  I 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  165 

presume  you  will  not  think  I  got  up  a  case  of  the  recep- 
tion «f  fourteen  members  into  full  connection  by  vote 
of  the  Church,  for  your  special  benefit,  and  in  anticipa- 
tion of  your  denial  of  that  custom  only  a  few  days  after. 
You  will  understand  Methodism  better  before  I  have 
done  with  you. 

Your  refusal  to  meet  my  challeng-e  for  the  publication 
of  the  deed  of  any  Methodist  Church  in  the  land,  I  take 
ae  a  silent  abandonment  of  your  position  on  the  pro- 
perty question;  and  I  await  patiently  for  your  denoue- 
ment of  the  mystery  of  the  Book  Concern. 

With  regard  to  the  power  of  our  bishops  to  control 
the  suffrages  of  our  people  in  civil  affairs,  I  think  you 
are  well  enough  acquainted  with  Methodists  to  be  as- 
sured, that  if  our  bishops  could  be  found  silly  enough  to 
attempt  such  control,  they  would  not  only  meet  with 
moral  resistance,  but  in  many  instances  would  be  for- 
cibly convinced  of  their  error  by  very  striking  argu- 
ments. 

Our  venerable  bishops  McKendree  and  Bascom,  who 
had  spoken  so  freely  upon  questions  of  Church  govern- 
ment, you  insinuate,  were  bribed  into  silence  by  elec- 
tion to  the  Episcopal  office.  The  members  of  Confer- 
ence who  elected  them  must  have  been  of  a  happy 
temperament  indeed,  to  have  rewarded  those  who 
"  mercilessly  castigated  "  them  with  the  highest  honors 
in  their  gift.  "  Would  your  Convention  do  likewise? 
Seriously,  the  insinuation  is  utterly  unworthy  of  you. 
You  cannot  possilily  credit  it  yourself  If  you  duly 
consider  tlie  Scripture,  "  Witli  Avhat  measure  you  mete 
it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again,"  you  will  l)e  more 
chary  in  future,  of  your  flings  at  the  memory  of  the  holy 
dead. 


166  A  DISCUSSrON   ON 

Upon  a  careful  consideration  of  the  reasons  you  have 
offered  to  prove  Methodism  anti-Republican,  I  find  your 
proofs  evince  an  entire  misapprehension  of  Methodism. 
You  have  created  a  man  of  straw,  and  battled  valiantly 
with  your  own  misconceptions  of  our  system.  My  prin- 
cipal business,  therefore,  in  this  discussion,  has  been  to 
rectffy  your  mistakes  concerning-  us.  1  have  already  in- 
formed you  that  almost  all  the  business  of  your  irregularly 
constituted  Conventions,  is  transacted  in  our  system,  by  side- 
societies;  such  as  Education,  Tract,  Missionary  Societies,  and 
Boards  of  Finance;  in  all  of  which  we  have  as  much  lay  dele- 
gation, and  lay  management,  as  you  could  ask  for;  and  that 
in  everything,  in  which  the  laity  is  equally  concerned 
with  the  ministry,  it  is  the  genius  of  Methodism  to  de- 
light in  lay  co-operation.  But  in  the  Annual  and  Gen- 
eral Conferences,  whose  chief  business  is  the  examina- 
tion and  reception  of  ministers,  and  their  distribution 
on  the  itinerant  plan — a  plan  which  you  yourself  have 
highly  commended — and  the  framing  of  laws  regulating 
that  reception  and  distribution,  we  admit  no  lay  dele- 
gation, save  in  the  financial  and  other  enterprises  spe- 
cified. Why  should  we  have  lay  delegates  to  examine  and  re- 
ceive ministers  in  Conference,  when  lay  mcmhers  have  already 
acted  on  the  very  same  cases  in  their  respective  Church  courts, 
and  the  only  candidates  who  can  apply  for  admission 
into  the  itinerancy,  have  come  up  upon  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  laity? 

And  with  reference  to  the  appointment  of  these  min- 
isters to  their  several  fields  of  labor,  I  have  already 
shown  you,  that  if  you  had  a  hundred  Baptist  itinerant 
ministers  assembled  in  Convention,  to  be  scattered  to 
the  four  winds  upon  a  self-sacrificing  mission,  you  could 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  16t 

neilher  tkmh  it  just,  nor  expedient,  nor  RfimbUam,  that  a  Bap- 
tist layman  should  arise  itjjun  the  floor  of  the  Convention,  and 
command  every  one  of  these  hundred  Baptist  itinerants  to  strike 
their  tents  and  go  ichilher soever  he  ordered  them,  while  he  him- 
self submitted  to  no  such  sacrifices,  and  quietly  returned  to  his 
secular  pursuits  at  home.  Such  Ecpublicaiiism  would  be 
a  bitter  pill  to  these  supposed  Baptist  itinerants;  they 
would  soon  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  they  knew  no 
such  rights,  and  comprehended  no  such  privileges.  You 
hav^  been  very  careful  not  to  notice  this  distinction, 
which  I  have  drawn  between  the  act  of  distributing 
ministers  upon  the  itinerant  plan,  and  the  support  of 
other  grand  Church  schemes;  the  first  illustrated  in  the 
case  of  the  supposed  Baptist  itinerants,  and  the  second 
in  Missionary,  Financial,  and  other  Boards,  which  at- 
tend to  business  like  that  of  your  Conventions,  and  in 
which,  there  is  as  much  lay  management  with  us,  if  not 
more,  than  you  can  possibly  boast  of  in  your  system. 
You  have  gone  even  farther  than  we  have  in  calling 
ministers'  meetings  without  any  lay  delegation  what- 
ever; for  you  have  done  this,  without  the  reason  which 
exists  among  us  for  doing  it,  namely,  the  appointment 
of  ministers  to  their  field  of  labor,  in  which  none  should 
have  a  voice  but  those  who  submit  to  like  sacrifices. 
You  have  called  ministers'  meetings,  as  Father  Mercer 
informs  us,  without  any  business  of  this  sort  to  be 
brought  before  them,  and  only,  according  to  Mercer, 
"  to  prevent  distracting  controversies,  and  to  keep  the 
beauty  of  the  Church  from  being  marred." 

Your  remark  that,  thia  was  only  a  wish  of  Father  Mer- 
cer, shows  that  you  are  not  well  posted  up  in  the  his- 
tory of  Georgia  Baptists.    It  was  not  merely  a  wish;  on 


168  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  contrary,  such  a  ministers'  meeting  was  actually 
organized  in  Eatonton,  in  October,  1838,  but  it  was 
found  difficult  to  secure  a  general  attendance,  and  in 
two  or  three  years  it  languished  into  non-existence. 
Memoirs,  page  265.  Father  Mercer  lamented  its  discon- 
tinuance, and  affirmed  it  was  because  "  they  were  turned 
every  one  to  his  own  way,  and  that  young  ministers  have 
had  the  rearing  of  themselves  in  the  churches,  and  have 
been  so  long  accustomed  to  direct  their  own  course, 
that  it  will  be  hard  to  bring  them  to  submit  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  a  ministerial  union."  I  find  also  upon  a  care- 
ful reading  of  the  History  of  the  Alabama  Baptist,  page 
124,  that  when  you  plan  a  system  of  itinerancy  upon  a 
small  scale,  your  ministers  associate  themselves  for  the 
work,  and  make  among  themselves  their  own  arrange- 
ments, for  the  supply  of  the  given  field  with  itinerant 
labor.  If,  therefore,  a  Conference  of  ministers  transact- 
ing business  in  which  none  but  themselves  are  equally 
interested,  and  that,  too,  with  a  lay  board  of  finance 
added  to  it,  be  anti-Republican,  how  much  more  anti- 
Republican  must  a  Conference  of  Baptist  ministers  be, 
who  are  without  lay  delegation,  and  who  have  no  itine- 
rant business  to  justify  their  exclusiveness.  "  Take 
the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,"  &c. 

You  have  rejoiced  over  your  quotation  from  Bishop 
Hamline,  as  one  that  fiudeth  great  spoil.  What  a  pity 
to  spoil  your  pretty  piece  of  funl  Mr.  Hamline  said, 
"  The  class  leader  becomes  unpopular  and  the  preacher 
removes  him;  the  itinerant  preacher  is  not  useful  in  his 
charge,  and  the  bishop  or  presiding  elder  deposes  him 
from  his  charge  or  pastoral  office,  and  makes  him  an 
assistant.     The  presiding  elder  impairs  his  usefulness 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  1G9 

on  a  district,  not  by  gross  malfeasance,  but  by  a  slight 
misfeasance,  or  oftener  still  because  he  is  not  popular,  and 
the  bishop  removes  him  to  a  circuit." 

In  all  these  instances,  the  removal  is  summary,  with- 
out trial;  it  is  for  no  crime,  and  generally  for  no  misde- 
meanor, hht  for  being  unacceptable.  These  removals  are 
by  a  sole  agent  whose  will  is  omnipotent  in  the  premi- 
ses, &c.  Do  you  think  Brother  Henderson,  that  in  these 
removals,  "  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  is  utterly 
ignored?" 

Why,  sir.  Bishop  Hamline  tells  us,  they  are  made  be- 
cause of  eccentriciiy,  unaccepiability  or  unpopularity,  with 
the  Church;  and  hence,  in  ever}-  instance  specified  by 
him,  according  to  the  wish  of  the  Church,  which  is  cer- 
tainly sufficiently  Republican.  But  further,  do  you 
know  the  design  of  Mr.  Hamlrne's  speech?  the  grand 
object  for  which  it  was  made?  If  not,  I  will  tell  you 
then:  it  was  to  prove  that  the  General  Conference 
could  remove  every  one  of  our  bishops  from  office  if  it 
saw  proper,  without  any  crime,  or  misdemeanor  what- 
ever, and  even  without  accusation  or  trial,  and  summa- 
rily— that  the  authority  of  tlic  Conference  over  the 
bishops,  was  omnipotent. 

In  the  very  next  paragraph  to  that  quoted  by  you, 
Mr.  Hamline  says:  "I  shall  argue  our  authority  to  de- 
pose a  bishop  summarily,  for  improprieties  morally 
innocent,  which  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  functions." 
Debates,  p.  129.  The  conference  acting  on  these  prin- 
ciples, suspended  Bishop  Andrew.  Is  it  possible  that 
an  Episcopacy  which  may  be  removed  summarily,  with- 
out trial  or  the  slightest  impeachment  of  moral  charac- 
ter, can  be  anti-Rcpublicanll!  You  are  particularly  un- 
15 


110  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

fortunate  in  quoting  Mr.  Hamline's  speech,  in  support 
of  your  groundless  allegation.  If  the  sentiments  of  that 
speech  be  true,  we  are  excessively  Republican,  and  our 
bishops  are  more  perfectly  shorn  of  power  than  any 
other  ministers  in  our  body.  Moreover,  had  you  pos- 
sessed a  copy  of  that  speech,  and  not  gotten  it  at  second 
hand,  you  would  have  better  understood  the  nature  of 
the  removals  he  speaks  of — that  they  do  not  affect  in 
the  smallest  degree  the  Christian  or  ministerial  jights  or 
functions  of  the  party  removed.  He  says:  "My  mind, 
sir  (if  not  my  words),  has  all  along  distinguished  be- 
tween orders  and  ofiSce."  The  summary  removals  which 
I  have  noticed,  are  from  office,  not  from  the  ministry. 
In  regard  to  ordained  preachers,  these  two  rules  will 
hold: 

First:  they  cannot  be  expelled  from  the  ministry  sum- 
marily, but  must  have  a  trial  in  due  form.  Secondly: 
they  cannot  be  expelled  for  improper  conduct,  but  only 
for  a  crime  forbidden  in  the  word  of  God.  These  rules, 
with  few  exceptions,  will  apply  to  private  members; 
they  cannot  usually  be  expelled  from  the  Church  with- 
out trial,  or  the  offer  of  trial;  (I  add,  too,  by  a  jury  of 
their  peers)  nor  for  improper  conduct. 

The  mistaken  view  you  have  taken  of  Mr.  Hamline's 
speech,  and  the  blunder  you  committed  in  referring  to 
it,  will  punish  you  justly  for  your  readiness  to  take  our 
Church  documents  in  a  garbled  form,  from  the  hands  of 
our  enemies.  The  fact  that  the  summary  removals  are 
not  from  the  ministry,  will  extinguish  your  momentary 
joy,  and  leave  only  a  mortifying  consciousness  of  ignor- 
ance of  our  system.  The  removals,  then,  which  you 
imagined  to  be  so  utterly  anti-Republican,  are  exactly 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  m 

similar  to  the  frequent  removals  made  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  when  he  transfers  summaril}',  and 
without  trial,  the  captain  of  one  naval  vessel  to  the 
command  of  another,  or  the  general  of  one  division  of 
the  army  to  the  command  of  another  division. 

Bishop  Andrew  might  still  have  preached  the  gospel, 
administered  the  sacraments,  or  presided  over  a  Church 
or  district,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the 
General  Conference  which  suspended  him  from  the  Epis- 
copal office.  His  orders  were  not  touched;  it  was  only 
his  permanent  moderatorship  over  the  Conferences 
which  was  affected  by  the  suspension. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  does  immensely 
more  of  this  work  of  summarily  removing  from  office; 
and  his  removals  affect  the  parties  removed  to  a  vastly 
greater  extent,  in  both  powers  and  emoluments.  The 
executive  officers  of  our  government,  under  the  Presi- 
dent, are  not  supposed  to  be  divinely  called  to  their 
office,  and  their  removal  utterly  extinguishes  their  of- 
ficial powers — as  in  the  removal  of  the  Cabinet,  and 
Custom  House  officers,  governors  of  territories,  and  the 
recall  of  ambassadors.  These  removals  do  not,  how- 
ever, impair  their  rights  of  citizenship.  But  in  the 
Church,  the  ministers  thereof  are  called  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  to  their  sacred  work;  hence,  nothing  but  crime 
can  subject  them  to  be  divested  by  any  Church  power 
whatever,  of  their  ministerial  prerogatives.  Can  you 
not  favor  us  with  a  pretty  burst  of  indignation  at  the 
utterly  anti-Republican  right  of  summary  removal  with- 
out trial,  accusation,  or  appeal,  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States.     Do  "  look  it  sternly  in  the  face,"  and  try 


1^2  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

your  chivalry  on  this  despotic  assumption,  "  growing 
up  under  the  boughs  of  the  tree  of  liberty  I"  *ha!  ha!  ha! 
Your  companion  in  arms,  Mr.  Ross,  of  Brownlow  Re- 
view notoriety,  seems  to  have  fallen  into  the  same  ditch. 
I  leave  you  to  sympathize  with  him,  and  when  he  again 
pronounces  Methodism  Anti-Christ,  I  will  tell  him  Bro. 
Henderson  says,  not  so,  sir;  "  Methodists  love  our  com- 
mon Lord,  and  have  exhibited  a  zeal  in  his  cause  (and 
of  course,  not  the  cause  of  Anti-Christ)  T^f)rthy  of  all 
praise."  When  your  nerves  recover  from  the  shock 
they  have  received  at  the  idea  of  summary  removal  from 
office,  for  unacceptability  to  the  people,  by  an  agent 
whose  will  is  omnipotent  in  the  premises:  albeit,  he 
himself  is  subject  to  a  like  removal,  if  he  use  this  power 
improperly,  you  will  see  in  this  feature  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Methodism,  a  striking  likeness  to  that  feature 
in  our  civil  government,  which  reposes  similar  power, 
but  to  a  vastly  greater  extent,  in  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 

ANALOGY. 

I  again  repeat,  sir,  there  are  differences,  such  as  I 
have  before  shown,  between  Church  government  and 
civil  government;  namely,  that  in  the  Church,  Christ  is 
the  sole  legislator;  Christ  calls  the  ministry  to  their 
sacred  office;  the  Church  can  inflict  no  civil  pains  and 
penalties  whatever;  and  in  the  Methodist  Church,  at 
least,  if  not  in  the  Baptist  Church,  the  members  can 
withdraw  at  pleasure.  Within  these  limitations,  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  as  perfect  a  mo- 
del of  our  civil  government,  as  any  Church  on  the  Ame- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  113 

rican  continent  can  possibly  be,  and  far  more  perfectly 
like  the  government  of  the  United  States  than  your 
Church  government.  Look  at  the  points  of  resemblance. 
Everywhere  with  us,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  is  acknow- 
ledged. In  our  Conferences,  the  Democratic  principle 
is  established,  that  none  should  make  laws  but  those 
who  are  themselves  subject  to  them;  but  that  in  all 
things  in  which  the  laity  are  equally  interested  with 
the  ministry,  namely,  in  all  our  grand  financial  and 
other  enterprises,  they  have  equal  suffrage  and  manage- 
ment. The  itinerancy  is  constituted  by  two  distinct 
acts  of  the  membership,  who  first  pass  upon  the  quali- 
fications of  the  candidates  for  the  itinerancy,  before  the 
Conference  can  receive  them;  and  then  the  itinerancy, 
like  our  legislatures  or  Congress,  which  elect  their 
Speakers  or  President  of  Senates,  elects  its  own  ofiicers. 
Our  State  legislature  elects  its  Senators;  so,  also,  does 
our  Annual  Conference  its  members  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. The  Senate  of  the  United  States  confirms  the 
nominations  of  the  President  to  the  Cabinet,  to  the 
Courts  of  Europe,  and,  most  important  of  all,  the  nom- 
inations to  a  lifetime  office  in  the  Supreme  Courts  of  the 
land — the  Judiciary  of  the  United  States.  And  tli^e 
officers  in  turn  appoint  their  subalterns,  until,  often,  the 
chain  of  appointments  is  removed  several  links  from  the 
people.  So,  also,  our  General  Conference  appoints  our 
bishops  and  editors;  only  that  in  the  Methodist  Church 
government,  our  appointments  are  not  carried  by  many 
links  80  far  from  our  people  as  in  the  civil  government. 
The  analogy  between  the  two  governments,  within  the 
limitations  specified,  is  the  closest,  perhaps,  that  ever 
existed  in  our  free  country.     If  you  charge  sucli  a  go- 


174  A   DISCUSSION  ON 

vernment  with  being  anti-Republican,  consistency,  it 
peems  to  me,  would  demand  of  you  that  you  should  de- 
vote your  talents  to  the  destruction  of  our  civil  govern- 
ment, of  which  the  government  of  Methodism  is  so  per- 
fect a  model. 

With  reference  to  the  disorders  in  the  Methodist 
Church,  they  are  exceptions — few  and  far  between — but 
with  the  Baptist  Church,  they  are  of  common  occurrence. 
Of  course,  you  will  not  condemn  the  Southern  Methodist 
Church  for  instituting  legal  process  for  the  recovery  of 
rights,  denied  by  an  abolition  sentiment.  Moreover,  the 
very  suit  in  question  was  conducted  in  so  kind  a  spirit, 
as  to  elicit  the  admiration  of  the  legal  gentlemen  con- 
nected with  it.  That  your  disorders  are  of  common  oc- 
currence, is  not  surprising  to  any  one  who  considers  the 
incougruous  elements  of  your  system  of  government; 
which  cannot  properly  be  called  a  government  at  all. 
They  exist  at  all  times.  Hear  the  language  of  the  Bap- 
tist papers,  your  own  recent  exchanges:  "  The  Bible 
Union,  at  its  anniversary,  refused  to  disclaim  fellowship 
with  the  sentiments  of  Alexander  Campbell." 

Again:  "What  a  melancholy  spectacle  is  now  exhibit- 
ed^ the  Baptist  denomination,  in  some  sections  of  our 
country;  brethren  who  ought  to  love  each  other,  have 
been  indulging  in  mutual  criminations  of  character,  so 
virulent,  as  would  inevitably  have  produced  bloodshed, 
had  the  same  epithets  been  employed  in  political  con- 
troversy."— (Biblical  Recorder,  N.  C,  June  tth.)  "The 
object  of  the  leaders  of  the  Bible  Union  is  to  rule  or  ruin 
the  denomination." — (Tennessee  Baptist.)  From  the 
preamble  and  resolutions  of  the  Alum  Creek  Baptist 
Church,  Ohio,  we  learn  that  "  Peter  Fitzgerald  bad  been 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  175 

excluded,  and  had  manifested  no  repentance  for  the 
crimes  for  which  he  was  excluded."  Two  3'ears  after 
his  exclusion,  the  Berlin  Church,  in  the  same  county, 
investigated  the  charges  against  Fitzgerald,  and  ac- 
quitted him.  The  Alum  Creek  Church  thereupon  re- 
solved, "  That  we,  as  a  Church,  do  solemnly  protest 
against  the-<;onduct  of  said  Berlin  Church  and  council 
in  said  premises,  as  immoral  in  its  tendency,  and,  as 
such,  tee  disclaim  fellowship  with  all  such  acts  of  Popery. 
J.  Frey,  Moderator."' — (Journal  and  Messenger,  Cincin- 
nati, June  1st.)  So  it' seems  you  have  some  Fopcry  in 
your  Church,  as  your  own  poets  say.  Once  more:  "  In 
the  mountains,  a  custom  long  prevailed,  that  Churches 
considered  it  a  part  of  their  Republican  privilege  to 
choose  their  pastoral  supply  from  3'ear  to  year:"  accord- 
ingly, Thomas  Stradley,  anticipating  this  result,  resign- 
ed his  pastoral  charge,  but  the  party  opposed  to  him, 
not  being  ready  to  carry  out  their  point,  deferred  the 
election  until  the  next  meeting,  at  which  twenty  voted 
for  him,  and  fifteen  for  James  Blythc.  On  Sunday,  when 
Stradley  went  to  preach,  "  James  Blythe  and  his  party 
set  up  opposition  preaching*,  within  sixty  or  seventy 
yards  of  the  Church."  This  is  stated  in  a  letter  from 
Thomas  Stradley,  Jr.,  to  the  Carolina  Intelligencer, 
June  14th.  Such  are  a  few  of  the  specimens  of  all 
kinds  of  disorder  existing  in  the  Baptist  Church  to  this 
very  day. 

I  will  gladly  relieve  your  mind  upon  the  question  of 
the  falsity  charged  upon  certain  positions  taken  ag'ainst 
Methodism.  If  you  look  over  my  letters  again,  you  will 
find  1  have  not  applied  the  term  falsehood  to  any  thing 
connected  with  our  discussion.     I  pronounced  the  au- 


116  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

thor  of  the  article  from  the  "Watchman,"  a  slanderer. 
I  affirmed  that  certain  propositions  extracted  from  lit 
were  false.  I  add  now,  that  they  were  grossly  slander- 
ous.' You  know  the  distinction  between  the  terms  false 
and  falsehood — the  former  simply  denies  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  matter  in  qiiestion — the  latter  charges  the 
author  of  it  with  lying.  Saul  of  Tarsus,  when  he  deemed 
Christ  an  imposter,  no  doubt,  uttered  what  was  untrue, 
yet  he  was  not  a  liar;  but  when  Peter  denied  his  Mas- 
ter, he  uttered  a  falsehood,  or  in  plainer  speech,  he  lied. 
Under  the  influence  of  prejudice,  and  in  almost  total  ig- 
norance of  our  S3'stem,  you  have  sadly  misi'epresented 
Methodism;  in  sincerity,  no  doubt,  or  you  would  not 
have  opened  your  columns  for  this  discussion.  Never- 
theless, the  positions  which  were  false  in  the  "  "Watch- 
man," are  no  less  false  in  your  endorsement  of  them. 
And  no  less  untrue  are  your  own  glaring  errors,  which  I 
have  so  often  been  called  to  correct;  such,  for  instance, 
as  that  great  mistake  affecting  vitally  the  rights  of 
membership-  in  our  Churches — that  a  bisliop  can  rein- 
state an  expelled  member,  and  "  the  word  of  a  bishop  is 
the  end  of  all  strife."  And  now,  brother,  I  wot  that 
through  ignorance  you  did  it,  as  do  also  other  rulers 
among  you.  Your  fault  lies  not  in  being  unacquainted 
with  Methodism,  but  in  attacking  us  without  provoca- 
tion, when  you  knew  not  what  you  did.  .It  is  not  con- 
genial with  my  spirit  to  point  out  the  defective  work- 
ings of  your  disjointed  government.  I  would  rather 
look  upon  the  Christian  enterprise  and  sweet  piety  of 
many  of  your  members. 

Nor  do  I  look  upon  your  government  as  anti-Repub- 
lican.    I  cannot  use  the  word  in  so  loose  a  sense;  for 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  l*lf 

nothing-  can  bo  aw/e-Ropublican  but  that  which  would 
overthrow  a  Republic;  and  I  have  no  fears  that  you  will 
attempt  that:  albeit  your  system  be  never  so  unlike  our 
civil  government,  to  which  Methodism  bears  so  striking 
a  resemblance.  And  withal,  the  good  sense  and  piety  of 
your  members  will  make  you  prosperous,  in  spite  of  the 
defects  of  your  ecclesiastical  economy. 

With  assurances  of  Christian  regard, 

I  subscribe  myself,  yours  in  Clirist, 
E.  J.  HAMILL. 

August  16th,  1855. 


178  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  Y. 

METHODIST  CHURCH  PROPERTY  CASE. 

The  "sun"  and  "moon"  of  "our  Episcopacy"  slightly  eclipsed; 
An  interesting  engagement  between  the  two  wings  of  the  "  terri- 
ble army  with  banners;"  A  circuit  rider  slain,  and  a  bishop  put 
hors  de  combat;  "  Our  Episcopacy"  sues  "  our  Episcopacy;"  Two 
important  principles  evolved  in  the  suit ;  Extracts  from  the 
speeches  of  Messi's.  Lord  and  Johnson,  the  counsel  for  the  claim- 
ants; Episcopal  Methodism  an  aristocracy,  which  "  admits  no  con- 
stituents;" The  decision  of  the  court;  Each  party  recognizing  the 
decision,  the  one  by  yielding  to,  the  other  by  accepting  the  award; 
The  relative  ability  of  the  United  States'  Circuit  Court,  and  "  an 
obscure  local  organ,"  to  injure  "our  Episcopacy;"  Sorrowful 
light;  More  than  a  million  of  the  "  rank  and  file"  of  the  "  terrible 
army"  slain  at  "  one  fell  swoop;"  More  about  the  "  Democratic 
element." 


Friendly  greeting ;  Reasonable  expectations  disappointed ;  The 
Munstcr  affair  again;  A  civil,  not  a  religious  movement;  A 
sprinkling  o( sprinklers  among  the  insurgents;  Buck;  The  Ink  Fish; 
An  interesting  syllogism;  The  "  four  points"  vindicated;  Episco- 
pal remedy  for  Church  disorders  worse  than  the  disease;  Dead 
palsy;  Ministers'  and  deacons'  meetings  again;  A  practical  ques- 
tion propounded  to  the  laity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church; 
" Hendersonian"  logic;  A  "strictness  of  speech"  that  cuts  two 
ways;  No  legislative  authority  given  to  the  Churches  by  Christ 
and  the  Apostles;  A  stride  towards  Rome;  Some  plain  questions 
asked;  The  advantage  which  "  our  Episcopacy"  might  have  been  to 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  1^9 

Paul  and  the  primitive  Churches,  in  rectifying  their  disorders; 
"Duplicity;"  Not  responsible  for  results,  where /arts  are  stated; 
Unkind  insinuation  in  regard  to  Bishops  McKendree  and  Bascom; 
The  "  man  of  straw"  betraying  tokens  of  sensibility;  The  charge 
of  second-handed  quotations,  and  garbling;  An  enquiry  after  the 
"symbols  of  faith,  called  creeds"  in  the  apostolic  age;  Supposed 
to  be  the  New  Testament;  Those  who  adopt  it  as  their  only  rule 
of  faith  and  conduct  have  something  which  can  be  "  accurately 
styled  Church  Government:"  Satisfactory  explanation. 

"  Now,  therefore,  there  is  utterly  a  fault  among  you,  because  ye  go  to  law  one  with 
another.  Why  do  ye  not  rather  take  wrong .'  Why  do  ye  not  rather  Buffer  yourselves 
to  be  defrauded.'"— I  Cor.  6,  7. 

"Money  is  a  defence."— Solomon. 

It  is  proper  that  we  again  state  the  precise  question 
at  issue  in  this  discussion.  It  is  important  that  the 
reader  should  have  it  always  distinctly  before  his  mind. 
The  question  is  this:  is  Methodist  Episcopacy  in  its  nature 
and  tendencies^  anti-Democratic  and  anti-Republicanl  In 
taking  the  affirmative  of  this  proposition,  we  have  dis- 
tinctly stated  from  the  commencement,  that  we  are  not 
attacking  the  patriotism  of  any  man  or  set  of  men.  We 
have  been  discussing  a  principle  in  ecclesiastical  polity, 
which  has  in  all  ages  of  the  world  tended  to  abuse  and 
corruption.  We  have  been  attempting  to  show  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  ifethodistic  complexion  of  Epis- 
copacy, which  has  inclined  us  to  change  our  opinion  of 
its  nature  and  practical  results.  Its  origin  and  history 
up  to  this  time,  so  far  as  our  means  of  information  ex- 
tend, point  unmistakcably  to  the  same  spiritual  and 
temporal  tyranny,  which  has  marked  its  progress  in 
every  age  of  the  world,  since  it  first  extinguished  the 
rights  of  the  Churches  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 
And  in  pursuing  our  object,  we  have  found  it  necessary 


180  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

to  bring  to  liglit  some  plain  and  startling  facts — all  of 
which  has  been  done  with  no  unkind  feeling  to  a  living 
soul.  That  there  is  a  complexion  of  narrow-minded  re- 
ligious prejudice,  which  cannot  comprehend  how  plain 
truths,  told  in  a  plain  way,  in  regard  to  an  organic 
principle  of  governmental  economy,  can  comport  with 
personal  good  will  and  christian  charity,  is  by  no  means 
surprising.  But  then  to  yield  to  such  an  influence, 
would  be  to  sacrifice  principle  to  policy — the  authority  of 
God  to  the  authority  of  man — and  practically  to  declare 
that  every  reformation  which  has  ever  been  attempted 
in  religion,  morals  and  civil  government,  has  been  a 
curse  to  the  world.  And  this  we  are  not  prepared  to 
admit,  even  out  of  complaisance  of  "  the  largest  denom- 
ination of  Christians  "  in  this  country.  The  more  exten- 
sive and  wide-spread  the  evil,  the  greater  the  cause  for 
alarm. 

We  now  propose  to  examine  the  "  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  Property  Case,"  as  argued  and  decided  in 
the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  Southern  District 
of  New  York,  printed  and  circulated  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  and  North. 
We  shall  try  and  be  as  brief  as  possible,  so  as  to  dis- 
pose of  it  in  a  single  article,  though  we  assure  the  read- 
er that  a  volume  could  be  profitably  written  upon  this 
single  case. 

And  lefus  premise  here,  that  if  the  "Democratic  ele- 
ment" really  exists  in  the  sj'stem,  it  certainly  could  not 
have  eluded  the  perception  of  the  learned  counsel  and 
.Court  who  argued  and  adjudicated  that  case.  If  ever 
an  occasion  offered  itself  in  which  to  elucidate  the  ar- 
cana of  "  our  Episcopacy,"  surely  this  was  the  occasion. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  181 

The  whole  history  of  its  establishment  and  practical 
■working's,  for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century,  was 
placed  in  evidence  before  the  Court,  and  expounded  with 
distinguished  ability  by  the  most  learned  counsel  on 
both  sides.  The  poicers  of  the  clergy,  the  bishops  and  tra- 
velling preachers,  was  the  point  to  be  argued  and  decided 
before  that  august  tribunal.  We  shall  recognize  the 
"  Property  Case,"  thee,  as  involving  an  authentic,  re- 
liable exposition  of  Episcopal  Methodism. 

When  the  ministers  of  an}'  denomination  agsume  the 
management  and  control  of  its  property,  they  not  only 
adopt  the  very  principle  which  all  civil  despots  have 
done  to  enslave  the  people,  but  are  guilty  at  the  same 
time,  of  departing  from  the  great  work  to  which  they 
profess  to  have  been  called  hj  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
tribe  of  Levi,  who  were  the  spiritual  teachers  of  reli- 
gion, were  not  allowed  to  own  one  foot  of  land,  or  in- 
deed any  other  kind  of  property.  The  Apostles  them- 
selves would  not  so  much  as  consent  to  disburse  the 
benefactions  •  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  among  the 
poor,  but  asked  the  Church  to  elect  seven  deacons,  a 
kind  of  board  of  managers,  to  attend  to  this  business, 
so  that  they  "  could  give  themselves  entirely  to  the 
word  of  God  and  prayer."  Observe,  tlicy  did  not  ap- 
point these  deacons  themselves,  but  requested  the 
Church  to  do  it.  We  beg  the-  reader  to  observe  this 
principle,  as  we  proceed  to  analyze  this  "case." 

In  1844,  the  General  Conference  assembled  in  the 
City  of  New  York.  A  case  was  carried  up  to  it 
from  the  State  of  Maryland,  to  this  effect:  A  Mr.  Hard- 
ing, a  travelling  preacher,  liad  been  deposed  from  the 
ministry  by  the  Maryland  Conference,  because  he  was 
IG 


182  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

a  slave  holder.  Possessing  the  right  of  appeal,  he  ap- 
plied to  the  General  Conference  for  relief.  That  body, 
by  a  very  large  majority,  confirmed  the  action  of  the 
Maryland  Conference,  in  deposing  Mr.  Harding.  Im- 
mediately the  question  recurred — If  we  depose  a  com- 
mon circuit  rider  for  being  a  slave  holder,  what  shall  we 
do  with  a  bishop  who  is  guilty  of  the  same  cri?nel  Bishop 
Andrew,  of  Georgia,  (than  whom  a  more  amiable,  meek, 
and  pious  man  perhaps  never  endured  the  mitre,)  was 
known  to  be  a  slave  holder.  This  was  the  great  question 
of  the  occasion.  It  brought  on  the  engagement  between 
the  two  wings  of  the  "  terrible  army  with  banners."  j  And 
never,  within  the  history  of  this  Eepublic,  has  ecclesi- 
astical domination  made  such  arrogant  assumptions  to 
interfere  with  the  civil,  social,  and  domestic  institutions 
of  the  country.  Here  is  an  aspect  of  Episcopacy  which 
may  well  alarm  the  fears  of  the  Christian  and  the  pa- 
triot. A  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  United  States  arraigns  one  of  its  first 
oificers,  and  holds  over  him  the  penalty  of  degradation, 
and  for  what?  For  the  crime  of  being  a  slave  holder! — as- 
suming to  interfere  with  an  institution  in  the  States, 
which  the  most  rabid  abolitionist  declares  Congress  can- 
not do! 

Well — the  measure  was  carried.  Bishop  Andrew  was 
instructed  to  suspend  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  his  bishop- 
ric, until  he  mamomitled  his  slaves.  Whereupon  the  Southern 
members  of  the  Conference  brought  in  a  solemn  protest 
against  the  measure,  as  "  extra  judicial."  That  protest 
was  answered  by  a  committee  appointed  on  the  part  of 
the  majority.  Dr.  Capers  (the  late  bishop)  introduced 
a  scries  of  resolutions  contemplating  a  peaceful  separa- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  183 

tion  of  the  South  from  the  Xorth,  and  the  organization 
of  a  Southern  General  Conference.  These  resolutions 
also  ceded  to  the  Southern  members,  provided  they 
should  form  such  an  organization,  "  all  the  Churches, 
schools,  colleges,  cemeteries,"  &c.,  lying  within  their 
specified  territory,  and  authorized  the  managers  of  the 
"  Book  Concern"  to  negotiate  an  equitable  division  of 
its  funds  with  such  commissioners  as  might  be  appoint- 
ed from  the  South.  These  resolutions  were  passed  by 
a  decided  majority.  And  here  let  it  be  distinctly  not- 
ed, that  the  bishops  and  clergy  at  this  Conference,  as- 
sumed an  absolute  proprietorship  in  "  all  the  Churches, 
schools,  colleges.  Book  Concern,"  &c.,  belonging  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  Time 
and  again  the  impression  has  been  sought  to  be  made, 
during  this  discussion,  that,  "  with  regard  to  the  busi- 
ness in  which  the  laity  are  equally  interested  with  the 
ministry — such  business  as  constitutes  the  sphere  of 
operations"  of  Baptist  Conventions,  State  and  general, 
they  (the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church)  "have  already 
lay  delegation,  and  lay  management" — and  that  it  is 
only  "the  privilege  of  scattering"  the  "  ministers  to  the 
four  winds,"  appointing  them  to  their  respective  fields 
of  labor,  that  the  laity  have  no  voice. — See  Bro.  HamilPs 
tliird  letter.  Arc  the  Laj'mcn  of  that  Church  "  equally 
interested  with  the  ministry,"  in  the  Churches,  schools, 
colleges,  cemeteries.  Book  Concern?  &c.  Bro.  Uamill 
will  not  deny  this.  And  yet,  when  the  bishops  and 
clergy  in  General  Conference  assembled,  assert  an  ab- 
solute proprietorship  in,  and  a  right  to  dispose  of,  all  this 
immense  aggregation  of  Church  property  in  the  United 
States,  not  a  single  layman's  voice  was  ever  heard  in 


184     .  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  council  that  argued,  or  the  vote  that  decided  the 
fate  of  this  measure  I  Nay,  further:  in  the  parties  liti- 
gant in  the  famous  lawsuit  we  propose  reviewing,  as 
appears  upon  the  face  of  the  "  bill,"  there  is  not  the 
name  of  a  single  layman  upon  either  side! 

But  to  proceed:  After  the  Conference  adjourned,  sun- 
dry scruples  suggested  themselves  to  the  minds  of  the 
Northern  managers  of  the  "  Book  Concern,"  as  to  whe- 
ther the  seceding  party,  (the  Southern  division,)  could 
he  legitimately  recognized  as  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — whether  the  admission  of  such  a  principle 
would  not  destroy  the  unity  of  the  Church — whether  the 
Church  have  the  right  to  cut  itself  in  twain,  and  thus 
commit  a  kind  of  moral  suicide,  &c.  &c.  They,  there- 
fore, refused  to  enter  into  the  negotiation  with  the 
Southern  commissioners,  as  directed  by  the  General 
Conference.  Under  the  leadership  of  Henry  B.  Bascom, 
than  whom  they  could  not  have  chosen  a  more  chival- 
rous generalissimo,  the  Southern  wing  of  the  "  terrible 
army  with  banners"  organized  its  forces,  and  immedi- 
ately issued  a  summons  to  the  Northern  wing  of  the 
"  terrible  army  with  banners,"  to  "  meet  them  at  Philippi!" 
when  and  where,  with  "  weapons  of  warfare  that  were 
carnal,"  tliey  should  decide  who  was  to  heir  the  "images 
and  superscriptions"  of  Uncle  Sam. 

We  wish  that  time  and  space  would  allow  us  to  enter 
into  the  full  merits  of  this  case.  We  have  only  time  to 
establish  two  points  which  directly  bear  upon  the  ques- 
tion we  are  discussing. 

First:  That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States,  in  its  governmental  economy^  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  bishop  and  travelling  clergy. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  185 

Secondly;  That  they  have  no  constituents.  They  are 
sovereign,  and  are  accountable  to  no  power  on  earth 
but  to  their  own  consciences. 

Now  for  the  proof  of  these  propositions.  Mr.  Lord, 
one  of  the  counsel  for  the  claimants,  spoke  as  follows: 
"  In  vain  you  look  into  this  Methodist  system,  prior 
to  1808,  for  any  restrictions  on  the  General  Conference 
of  that  Church.  If  that  body  had  chosen  to  become  So- 
cinian;  if  it  had  chosen  to  adopt  the  Presbyterian  or 
Baptist  forms,  either  of  government  or  of  doctrine,  it 
was  in  its  power  to  do  it.  There  was  no  limit.  They 
represented  the  Church — they  were  tlte  Church.  The 
Church  dispersed  its  light  from  the  preachers.  The 
laity  were  not  known  in  the  governing  body.  Matters 
of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  everything  were  in  the  go 
verning  body.  If  that  was  so  up  to  1808,  what  was 
that  body  after  that  period?  It  was  the  same  General 
Conference." — Prop.  Case,  p.  163. 

The  Hon.  Eeverdy  Johnson,  who  also  represented  the 
Southern  Commissioners  in  that  case,  spoke  thus:  "This 
Church,  be  it  remembered,  even  unto  the  present  time, 
and  I  speaTi  it  in  no  offensive  sense,  as  regards  its  gov- 
ernment, has  been  absolutely,  since  the  days  of  Wesley, 
an  aristocracy.  Laymen  have  had,  and  now  have  no 
voice  in  it.  If  there  is  a  layman  within  the  sound  of 
my  voice,  he  knows  he  has  no  voice  now.  Heretofore,  they 
have  been  satisfied  with  the  government.  They  have 
acted  upon  the  saying  of  Pope, — 

'  For  form-s  of  governuioiit  let  fools  contest, 
That  which  is  best  administered  is  best.' 

They  perhaps   will   bo   found   changing   their   opinioii, 
when  they  find  it  is  liot  always  best  administered. 


186  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

"  Now  I  want  to  know,  if  the  entire  sovereign  power 
of  the  Church  was  in  the  ministers,  the  preachers,  what 
other  body  on  the  face  of  God's  earth  was  there  in  1808 
upon  which  to  devolve  the  power  of  dividing  the  Church, 
which  must  have  been  in  the  ministers,  than  the  Confer- 
ence of  1808.  The  ministers  made  the  Church.  The 
ministers,  in  the  governmental-  sense,  are  the  Church. 
The  sovereigns  are  the  ministers,  and  if  it  be  a  part  of 
the  sovereign  power,  in  a  body  of  this  description,  to 
divide  itself,  then  that  power  existed  in  the  Conference 
of  ministers  of  1808,  or  it  is  gone.  The  admission  is, 
that  it  cannot  be  extinguished.  It  is  absolute,  inherent, 
and  alienable,  as  my  brother,  Mr.  Choate,  admitted.  A 
body  unlimited  in  the  authority  to  create,  is  equally  un- 
limited in  the  authority  to  destroy,  responsible  only  to 
their  consciences  for  the  manner  in  which  either  author- 
ity is  exercised." — Meth.  Ch.  Properly  Case,  p.  331. 

Again:  on  page  328,  speaking  of  the  action  of  the 
Conference  of  1784,  Mr.  Johnson  said — "  Tbey  admit  no 
constituenC3^  The  time  is  perhaps  comh}g  when,  in  all  pro- 
haUlity,  they  will  he  obliged  to  admit  one  for  the  good  of  the 
Church.  They  resolve  for  themselves,  and  for  themselves 
ALONE,  as  the  possessors  of  ALL  ECCLESIASTICAL 
POWER  known  to  the,  Methodist  Church,  to  carry  out  the 
particular  organization  authorized  by  John  Wesley, 
without  any  other  authority  than  his,  and  their  own  convic- 
tion that  the  good  of  the  Church  demanded  such  a  spe- 
cial and  particular  organization."  And  still  further,  on 
page  329,  Mr.  J.  continues:  "No  modicum  of  power  was 
left  elsewhere.  The  Church  was  not  to  look  elsewhere 
for  any  j^ortion  of  authority.^'  We  could  quote  much 
more  to  the  same  purpose,  but  this  is  sufficient. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  187 

Now,  let  us  sum  up  this  evidence.  Here  are  two  of 
the  first  lawyers  in  the  Union,  emploj^ed  by  the  com- 
plainants, the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  to  defend  their  right  to  an  equitable  di- 
vision of  "  Church  property"  before  the  United  States' 
Circuit  Court,  relying-  wholly  upon  the  evidence  which 
they  furnished  to  their  hand,  declaring  what?  That  the 
Conference  of  1784,  composed  of  sixty  travelling  preach- 
ers, with  Messrs.  Asbury  and  Coke  at  their  head,  in 
adopting  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  that  Church, 
"admit  no  constituency" — that  "not  one  particle  of 
power  was  left  elsewhere — that  laymen  have  had,  and 
now  have  no  voice  in  it — that  the  ministers  comj^ose  the 
Church — that  in  a  governmental  sense  they  are  the 
Chukch— ;;/««/  it  is  absolutely  an  ARISTOCRACY — that  it 
possesses  unlimited  power  to  create  and  to  destroy — that 
it  could  have  become  Socinian  had  it  chosen  to  do  so — 
and  that  it  is  responsible  to  no  tribunal  on  earth  but 
the  consciences  of  those  who  wield  its  authority!"  All 
this,  and  much  more  of  like  character,  was  solemnly 
pronounced,  as  already  intimated,  by  two  of  the  ablest 
lawyers  of  the  United  States,  before  one  of  the  highest 
judicial  functionaries  of  the  country,  as  an  exposition 
of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  and  published  to  the  world 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South  and  North!  And  yet  for  daring  to  question  its 
Republicanism,  we  are  to  be  denounced  by  its  patented 
journals  as  a  demagogue,  a  higot,  an  ignoravms,  a  legitimate 
child  of  the  father  of  lies! 

But  we  have  higher  evidence  than  all  this  to  sustain 
our  position.  After  the  case  was  elaborately  argued 
by  such  men  as  Johnson,  Choatc,  Lord  and  Wood,  Judge 


188  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Nelson  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  from  wliieli 
we  make  the  following  extract: 

"2.  As  to  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to 
authorize  a  separation  of  the  Church  organization. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States 
was  established,  in  its  g-overnment,  doctrine,  and  disci- 
pline, by  a  General  Conference  of  the  travelling  preach- 
ers in  this  communion,  in  1784.  Down  to  that  time,  the 
Methodist  Societies  in  America  had  been  governed  by 
John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  this  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians, through  the  agency  of  his  assistants.  During 
this  year,  the  entire  government  was  taken  into  the 
hands  of  the  travelling  preachers  with  his  approbation 
and  assent.  They  organized  it,  established  its  doctrines 
and  discipline,  appointed  the  several  authorities — su- 
perintendents or  bishops,  ministers  and  preacliers — to 
administer  its  polity,  and  promulgate  its  doctrines  and 
teaching  throughout  the  land.  From  that  time  to  this, 
the  source  and  fountain  of  all  its  temporal  power  are 
the  travelling  preachers  in  this  connexion  in  General 
Conference  assembled.  The  lay  members  of  the  Church 
have  no  part  or  connexion  with  its  governmental  organ- 
ization, and  never  had.  The  travelling  preachers  com- 
prise the  embodiment  of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and 
temporal;  and,  when  assembled  in  General  Conference 
according  to  the  usages  and  discipline  of  the  Church, 
represent  themselves,  and  have  no  constituents:  and 
thus  the  organization  continued  until  the  year  1808, 
when  a  modification  took  place."  —  Appendix  Prop. 
Case,  pp.  10,  11. 

The  "  modification  "  to  which  Judge  Nelson  alludes, 
relates  to  the  organization  of  a  General  out  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  which  occurred  in  1808.  The  Judge 
then  proceeds  to  show  that  that  modification  did  not  af- 
fect in  the  slightest  degree  the  principle  he  had  laid 
down,  to  wit:  That  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  General 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  189 

Conference  assembled  embodied  all  the  power,  "  eccle- 
siastical and  temporal,"  known  in  their  governmental 
economy. 

The  decision  of  the  Court,  then,  sustains  every  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  counsel.  We  will  state  these  positions 
again  in  still  fewer  words,  confirmed  by  the  extract 
from  the  opinion  of  the  Court:  All  the  derived  power 
which  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  ever  had  came,  not  from  the  Churches,  but  from 
John  Wesley — they  established  its  doctrines  and  disci- 
pline— created  its  officers  to  administer  its  polity — they 
are  the  source  and  fountain  of  all  its  power — laymen 
have  no  connexion  with  its  governmental  organization 
and  never  had — and  when  assembled  in  General  Con- 
ference according  to  the  usage  and  discipline  of  the 
Church,  repref^ent  \hemselves,  AND  HAVE  NO  CONSTIT- 
UENTS I    No  bill  of  exceptions  was  filed  to  this  decision. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North,  yielded  to, 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  accepted 
the  award!  Both  divisions  of  the  Church  stand  com- 
mitted to  this  decision,  as  containing  a  true  and  faith- 
ful exposition  of  the  governmental  economy  of  that 
Church.  Why  have  we  never  heard  these  laAvyers  and 
Judges  denounced  as  demagngues  and  bigots — and  as  ig- 
norant of  the  subject  they  were  adjudicating?  They 
aver,  that  so  far  as  government  is  concerned,  (and  that 
is  the  ONLY  subject  we  are  discussing,)  the  bishops  and 
travelling  clergy  are,  de  facio,  the  CiiurcH: — that  in  its 
legislative  and  administrative  economy,  its  lay  members 
are  unknown — that  it  is  an  aristocracy — and  has  no  constit- 
uents. Now,  if  all  tliis  wore  untrue,  can  any  man  sup- 
pose for  one  moment,  that  the  North  would  have  yielded 
its  claim  to  four  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  that  the 


190  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Soutli  would  have  accepted  it?  Is  the  "Democratic  ele- 
ment" in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  if  it 
ever  existed,  worth  only  four  hundred  thousand  dollars? 
And  yet,  to  secure  that  pitiful  sum,  the  six  hundred 
thousand  private  members  in  the  Southern  division  of 
that  Church,  and,  we  may  add,  a  larger  number  in  the 
Northern  division,  aggregating  a  million  and  a  half,  or 
nearly  so,  of  American  citizens,  are  recognized  by  the 
public  records  of  the  country,  in  their  ecclesiastical  re- 
lations, as  bcloio  the  rank  of  common  citizens — as  being  no 
constituents!!  We  do  not  design  to  introduce  degrad- 
ing compai-isous;  but  we  must  be  permitted  to  ask,  what 
more  humiliating  language  could  be  used  in  regard  to 
the  subjects  of  the  most  absolute  despotisms  on  earth, 
than  that  they  "  are  no  constii/wentsl"  Methodists!  local 
preachers  and  private  members!  lovers  of  God,  of  truth, 
of  liberty,  and  of  your  country ! 

"If  you  have  nature  in  you,  bear  it  not!"' 

"  The  travelling  preachers  comprise  the  emhodiment  of 
its  poicer,  ecclesiastical  and  TEMPORAL;  and  when 
assembled  in  General  Conference,  according  to  the  usage 
and  discipline  of  the  Church,  represent  themselves,  and 
HAVE  NO  constituents!"  What  more  have  we  ever  said? 
Why  is  it,  we  again  ask,  that  Judges  Nelson  and 
Betts,  the  Hon.  Eeverdy  Johnson,  and  his  colleagues, 
have  never  been  held  to  account  for  uttering  such  lan- 
guage as  this?  Was  it  because  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars  depended  upon  the  maintenance  of  these  doc- 
trines? Or  rather  was  it  not  because  they  spoke  the 
truth?  Wliy  is  it  that  they  have  escaped  the  eccle- 
siastical lash  of  the  guardians  of  Epis'copacy,  religi- 
ous and  political,  while  "  an  obscure  local  organ,"  to 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  ]91 

use  the  very  ddicale  and  resjiecfful  laDguag'c  of  a  Method- 
ist contemporary,  for  alleging  nothing  more  than  this, 
is  to  be  denounced  as  guilty,  of  "  the  lowest  piece  of  de- 
magogueisvi,  and  narrow  minded  bigotry  that  has  yet 
transpired?"  The  United  States  Court  was  certainly 
capable  of  inflicting  a  more  serious  injury  upon  "  our 
Episcopacy"  than  an  "  obscure  local  organ."  And  yet, 
when  that  decision  was  announced,  the  editors  of  all 
the  Methodist  journals,  South,  congratulated  themselves 
and  their  Church,  upon  the  successful  termination  of  the 
suit,  and  accepted  the  award  of  the  Court  without  so 
much  as  questioning,  so  far  as  we  know,  a  single  prin- 
ciple upon  which  it  was  made.  "Our  Episcopacy"  sues 
"  our  Episcopacy"  at  one  of  the  highest  judicial  tribun- 
als of  the  country.  The  p^arties  litigant  prove  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  counsel  and  judges,  that  the  bishops 
and  travelling  preachers  "made  the  Church;"  that  the 
bishops  and  travelling  preachers  "  are,  in  the  govern- 
mental sense,  the  Church;"  that  "  this  Church  ever  has 
been,  and  is  now  ahsulutely  ax  aristocracy;"  that  they 
admit  no  constituency,  and  have  no  constituency."  And 
the  solemn  claim  is  set  up  by  these  clmmpions,  that  Me- 
thodist Episcopacy,  as  a  distinct  form  of  government, 
not  only  harmonizes  with,  but  wonderfully  illustrates 
and  strengthens  those  great  fundamental  principles 
which  constitute  the  substratum  of  our  glorious  Ilepub- 
lic;  that  all  men  are  created  equal;  that  all  power  is 
inherent  in  the  people;  and,  that  the  will  of  the  people, 
constitutionally  expressed,  is  the  law  of  the  landll  lie 
that  can  believe  it,  letliim!  All  we  have  to  say  is,  we 
envy  not  the  huge  dimensions  of  that  credulity,  -\vliicli 
can  swallow  that  camel. 


192  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Such,  then,  was  the  engag-ement  between  the  two 
wings  of  this  "  terrible  army  with  banners."  Let  us 
now  survey  the  field  of  battle,  after  this  "  terrible"  con- 
flict, and  try  to  estimate  the  "  loss  and  gain"  upon  each 
side  of  the  combatants.  The  Southern  wing  of  the 
"terrible  army"  lost  a  circuit  rider  (Harding)  and  had  a 
bishop  (Andrew)  put  hors  de  combat,  among  the  regular 
officers  of  the  line.  The  Northern  wing  lost  about  four 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  which,  of  course,  was  gained 
by  the  Southern  wing,  and  which,  to  that  extent,  com- 
pensated for  the  loss  of  their  officers.  But  now  as  to 
the  "rank  and  file"  upon  either  side — the  heart  sickens 
at  the  scene  of  carnage. 

"  If  you  have  tears,  prepare  to  shed  them  now." 

• 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  this  engage- 
ment, it  was  understood  by  the  official  organs  of  the 
two  wings,  that  the  "  constituency,"  the  common  sol- 
diers of  the  "terrible  army,"  amounted  in  the  aggregate 
to  about  one  million  two  or  three  hundred  thousand. — 
But  alas!  from  the  dispatches  which  have  reached  us 
from  the  scene  of  conflict,  signed  and  sealed  by  the  pro- 
per officers,  not  one  common  soldier  survives,  to  com- 
memorate in  verse  or  history,  the  deeds  of  valor  which 
were  performed  at  Philippi!  The  dispatch  reads — 
"  THEY  HAVE  NO  CONSTITUENTS  !"  They  had 
claimed  up  to  that  date,  "  a  constituency"  of  between  a 
million  and  a  million  and  a  half.  At  the  close  of  the  en- 
gagement, Judge  Nelson  declares  there  is  none!  no, 
not  one!  Marathon,  Actium,  and  Waterloo — Saratoga, 
New  Orleans,  and  Sebastopol  —  hide  your  diminished 
heads!    Here  is  a  "  terrible  army  with  banners,"  which, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  193 

at  one  fell  swoop,  annihilates  a  "  constituency"  of  al. 
most  a  million  and  a  half ! 

But  look  at  another  aspect  of  this  power  claimed  for 
the  bishops  and  travelling  clergy  in  General  Conference 
assembled.  Says  Mr.  Lord,  one  of  the  counsel  for  the 
complainants,  and  of  course  good  authority  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  "  If  that  body  (the 
General  Conference)  had  chosen  to  become  Socinian; 
if  it  had  chosen  to  adopt  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist 
forms,  either  of  government. or  doctrine,  it  was  in  its 
power  to  do  it."  What!  change  the  whole  Methodist 
denomination  in  the  United  States  into  a  Socinian  body? 
Or  into  a  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  organization,  both  in 
discipline  and  doctrine?  "Yes,"  says  Mr.  Lord,  "there  was 
no  limit;  they  represented  the  Church;  they  were  the 
Church;"  "They  admit  no  constituents,"  responds  Mr. 
Johnson;  "  "They  have  no  constituents,"  says  the  Court  1 
Now,  so  far  as  we  know,  none  of  the  organs  of  that 
Church  had  ever  denied  these  positions  of  the  counsel  and 
Court.  Indeed,  upon  their  successful  maintenance,  de- 
pended the  issue  of  the  pending  suit.  If  the  sovereign 
power  did  not  belong  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  that 
Church,  they  had  no  right  to  divide  its  property.  But 
if  the  sovereign  power  did  reside  there;  if  "not  a  modi- 
cum of  power  was  left  elsewhere," — then,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  power  could  be  exercised  upon  all  questions 
of  doctrine  or  discipline  without  being  responsible  to 
any  authority  for  its  exercise  "  but  their  own  con- 
sciences." Need  we  ask,  can  the  most  stubborn  incre- 
dulity itself  deny,  if  this  be  a  faithful  exposition  of  Epis- 
copal Methodism,  that  it  is  a  system  of  CLERICAL 
ABSOLUTISM. 

n 


194  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Now,  readerj  do  you  not  agree  with  us,  that  it  will 
take  a  microscope  of  a  hundred  fold  more  power  than 
has  yet  revealed  the  wonders  of  a  universe  in  a  single 
drop  of  water,  to  discover  the  "Democratic  element"  in 
a  system  which  "admits  no  constituents" — which  "has 
no  constituents!" 


We  congratulate  Brother  Hamill  upon  his  safe  return 
to  the  people  of  his  charge.  With  a  right  good  will,  we 
again  bid  him  welcome  to  our  columns,  sincerely  trust- 
ing that  his  respite  will  enable  him  to  enlighten  us  more 
fully  upon  the  Democracy  of  "  our  Episcopacy."  Again, 
also,  must  we  commend  him  for  the  very  kind  spirit 
which  pervades  his  article.  It  is  so  very  different  from 
that  which  has  been  manifested  towai'ds  us  by  sundry 
of  his  brethren,  in  several  of  the  "Advocates,"*  that  the 
task  of  responding  to  it  is  a  real  pleasure  to  us.  We 
trust  that  this  disci^ssion  will  prove  one  thing  to  the 
sensitive  and  censorious,  and  that  is,  that  it  is  j^ossible 
for  Christian  men  to  discuss  their  differences  with  the  kindest 
feelings  to  each  other,  as  well  as  in  a  Christian  spirit. 

We  had  hoped,  after  the  lapse  of  so  many  weeks,  that 
our  brother  was  preparing  an  article  entirely  upon  the 
question  at  issue  between  us.  When  lo!  the  very  first 
paragraph  contains  another  allusion  to  the  "madmen  of 
Munster,"  as  they  are  called.  On  reflection,  hoM^ever, 
we  suppose  that  the  Munster  insurrection  has  about  as 
much  connection  with  Methodist  Episcopacy,  as  Me- 
thodist Episcopacy  has  with  American  Democracy.  We 
suppose  we  must  inform  our  brother  that  that  movement 

*  See  Appendix  D. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  195 

in  Germany  was  not  a  religions,  but  a  political  one.  Its 
promoters  were  what  were  subsequently  known  in  Eng- 
land as  "fifth  monarchy  men."  Various  sects  were  en- 
gaged in  it.  One  of  its  leaders,  on  one  occasion,  sprin- 
kled several  hundreds  of  his  followers  with  a  mop — 
somewhat  after  the  manner  Mr.  Wesley  supposed  John 
sprinkled  the  crowds  that  came  to  his  ministry  on  the 
banks  of  the  Jordan.  Now,  it  strikes  us  that  this  is  not 
exactly  Baptistic.  Buck  says:  "  It  must  be  acknow- 
ledged that  the  true  rise  of  the  insurrection  of  this  period 
ought  .not  to  be  attributed  to  religious  opinions."  A  great 
part  were  Ana-baptists.  *  *  *  A  great  part,  also, 
were  Roman  Catholics,  and  a  still  greater  part  had  no 
religious  principles  at  all." 

Then  follows  a  pretty  long  episode  upon  "  close  com- 
munion" and  "Baptist  anarchy."  Indeed,  most  of  the 
article  is  taken  up  with  the  latter  subject.  Now,  Bro. 
Ilamill,  if  you  could  demonstrate,  not  only  to  the  satis- 
faction of  every  Methodist,  but  of  every  thinking  man  on 
earth,  that  Baptist  Churches  in  this  country  were  line- 
ally descended  from  the  Munster  insurrectionists — nay, 
further,  that  the  first  Baptist  Church  was  organized  in 
the  botfomless  pit,  and  was  one  of  the  "  unclean  spirits" 
which  John  saw  issuing  from  the  mouth  of  "  the  beast," 
— what  would  all  that  have  to  do  with  the  plain,  practi- 
cal question  at  issue  between  us — "Is  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy anti-Republican?"  Ichthyologists  inform  us,  that 
there  belongs  to  the  finny  tribe,  a  singular  species, 
which  has  the  power,  when  pursued  by  an  enemy,  of 
throwing  out  a  dark,  muddy  substance,  which  has  much 
the  samo  effect  upon  the  water  that  a  cloud  has  upon 
the  atmosphere.     And  having  created  this  pavilion  of 


195  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

darkness,  it  very  dexterously  eludes  the  pursuit  of  its 
foe.     It  is  called  the  ^'•Ink-jishP     Verbum  sat. 

Seriously,  Brother  Hamill,  what  would  "Hedge"  pro- 
nounce of  your  logic,  if  the  foregoing  were  adduced  as 
specimens?  You  set  out  to  show,  what?  Why,  "  the 
striking  analogy  between  the  Methodist  Church  govern- 
ment and  the  government  of  the  United  States."  This 
you  do,  first  by  appealing  to  the  insurrection  among  the 
peasants  of  Germany,  in  the  sixteenth  oentUry;  second- 
1}^  to  "  close  communion,"  as  you  call  it,  as  practised 
among  Baptists;  and  thirdly,  to  Baptist  anarchy!  That 
is — there  was  an  insurrection  in  Germany,  in  the  six- 
teenth century — moreover,  the  Baptists  practise  "  close 
communion," — and  still  further,  (how  astonishingly  cu- 
mulative the  argument?)  Baptist  Churches  sometimes 
get  into  confusion:  Therefore,  there  is  a  "striking  ana- 
logy between  the  government  of  the  Methodist  .Episco- 
pal Church  and  the  government  of  the  United  States!" 
Shades  of  Locke, "Reid,  and  Hedge!  what  profound  rea- 
soning! But,  as  already  intimated,  that  penetration 
which  can  evolve  the  "  Democratic  element"  in  "  our 
Episcopacy,"  can  iind  no  difiSculty  in  demonstrating  the 
logical  connection  between  the  premises  and  coficiusion 
of  the  above  argument. 

Tha  four  points  we  suggested  as  organic  elements  in 
a  New  Testament  Church,  are  "partly  correct,"  but 
"  may  need  some  emendation."  Well,  what  are  these 
emendations?  First,  as  to  the  constituency  of  a  gospel 
Church,  Brother  Hamill's  answer  varies  from  ours  only 
so  far  as  to  include,  we  suppose,  "  seekers."  But  as  we 
did  not  set  out  to  ascertain  the  constituency  of  a  Me- 
thodist, but  an  Apostolic  Church,  there  is  no  need  of  a 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  191 

serious  reply.     Our  position  remains  impregnable,  that 
in  the  Apostles'  age,  Churches  were  composed  of  "saints, 
faithful  brethren,  the  sanctified,  saved,"  &c.     Secondly: 
to  our  question — Are  these  saints  and  faithful  ones  com- 
petent to  govern  themselves — he  answers:  "They  are, 
within  certain  limitations."     These  limitations  are,  that 
Christ  has  given  the  fundamental  laws — that  the  Spirit 
calls  men  to  the  ministr}^ — that  the  Church  may  judge 
who  are  called  to  the  holy  oflBce — positions,  these,  which 
Baptists  have  held  from  time  immemorial — and  finally, 
"  to  bear  some  sort  of  rule  in  the  Church  of  God,  as  Paul 
saith,  '  Remember  them  who  have  the  rule  over  you,'  &ic., 
and  may  also  do  whatever  else  is  necessary  for  good  govern- 
vientP^      Pretty   large    margin,    this,    Brother   Hamill. 
Wlio  are  to  judge  .  of  what  is  necessary  for    "  good 
government,"  the  rulers  or  the  governed?     It  reminds 
us  of  the  last  article  in  the  rules  of  a  well  known  aca- 
demy in  a  neighboring   State:    That  as  no  s^^stem  of 
rules  could  meet  every  emergency,  especially  in  the 
government  of  naughty  boys,  much  waitld   be  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  teachers.      Eeader,    is  not  our  brother 
demonstrating  the   "democratic  ekinent"  with  a  venge- 
ance?    Thirdly:    Has   the  New  Testament  inculcated 
any  form   of  Cimrch    government?      His    answer    to 
this  is  somewhat  like  "our  Episcopacy,"  a  little  diffi- 
cult to  understand.     If,  however,  we  can  comprehend 
his  meaning,  he  answers  it  negatively.   He  thinks,  from 
the  "  brevity  of  Scripture,  the  variety  of  merrtal  charac- 
ter, the  fallibility  of  even  good  men,"  &c.,  that  "  confessions 
of  faith,   or  creeds,"  may  "  serve  as  points  of  union 
among  Christians,  ajid  as  defences  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  error."    Now,  there  is  but  one  M'ay  to  test  the 


198  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

correctness  of  any  principle;  and  that  is,  to  observe  its 
practical  operation.  A  few  plain  questions  and  answers 
may  suggest  to  the  mind  of  the  reader  all  that  need  be 
said  upon  this  point.  What  divides  the  various  denomi- 
nations of  Christians  from  each  other?  Creeds.  What 
keeps  up  this  division,  and  makes  it  more  marked  every 
year?  Creeds.  What  is  the  first  thing  that  every  new 
sect  does  that  springs  up  in  the  country?  It  "draws 
up  a  symbol  of  faith,  called  a  creed."  Does  this  effect 
a  "  union"  of  this  sect  "  among  Christians?"  It  separates 
its  members /rom  all  other  Christians.  What  is  the  first 
stop  to  efi"ect  a  union  among  all  Christians?  The  de- 
struction of  that  which  now  separates  them — their 
creeds.  What  is  the  next  step?  The  adoption  of  the, 
Bible,  and  the  Bible  only,  as  the  entire  rule  of  faith  and 
practice. 

The  truth  is,  human  creeds  may  make  pretty  good 
servants,  but  most  wretched  masters.  Our  brother 
gives  one  very  singular  reason  why  this  discretionary 
power  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of  men.  It  is  the 
"fallibility  even  of  good  men^  Human  fallibility,  it 
seems  to  us,  is  a  pretty  good  reason  why  "  even  good  " 
but  uninspired  men,  should  not  be  trusted  to  draft  a 
constitution  for  a  divine  government.  As  to  "  creeds  " 
being  barriers  to  "error,"  we  think  the  reverse.  We 
think  that  they  foster  6rror.  A  Presbyterian  denounces 
Methodism  as  "  anti-Christ."  A  Methodist  avers  that 
the  cherished  dogma  of  Presbyterianism,  "  eternal,  par- 
ticular, and  unconditional  election,"  emanated  from  the 
bottomless  pit,  and  that  it  will  return  thither.  Are  they 
both  right?  And  how  long  will  it  take  their  "  creeds"  to 
effect  a  union  among  these  "  Christians?"     But,  Fourth- 


METHODSIT  EPISCOPACY.  199 

ly,  to  the  question:  Do  the  Churches  belong  to  the  min- 
istry, or  the  ministry  to  the  Churches?  our  brother 
responds:  "Neither,  but  both,"  &c.,  and  to  prove  this, 
lie  refers  to  a  passage,  upon  which  all  despotic  hier- 
archies have  always  insisted,  "  expounding  it  with  a 
richness  and  an  unction  as  if  the  very  substance  of 
God's  message  to  man  were  therein  summarily  compre- 
hended," says  Isaac  Taylor.  The  passage  is  this — 
"  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you  in  the  Lord." 
But  in  what  were  they  to  obey  them?  Why  clearly  in 
their  spiritual  instructions  and  admonitions?  Ministers 
are  members  of  the  Churches,  and  as  s".eh  have  all  the 
rights  of  other  members.  The  office  to  which  they  are 
called,  is  a  spiritual,  not  a  temporal  office.  The  injunc- 
tion is  purely  a  spiritual  one,  for  the  Apostle  immediately 
adds,  "  they  (these  ministers)  watch  for  souls."  Does  it 
need  a  serious  argument  to  prove  that  Churches  have 
the  right  to  control  that  which  emanates  from  them- 
selves— the  property?  Yet,  Judge  Nelson,  as  we  have 
seen,  declares  that  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
"  the  travelling  preachers  comprise  the  embodiment  of 
its  power,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,"  &c.  So  that 
Episcopal  Methodism  places  in  the  hands  of  its  bishops 
and  travelling  clergy  all  power,  spiritual  and  temporal, 
known  in  its  organization.  "  Not  a  nipdicum  of  it  is  left 
elsewhere."  It  is,  therefore,  in  the  true  and  proper 
sense  of  that  term,  a  system  of  clerical  absolutism.  Our 
brother  speaks  of  the  "checks  and  balances  "of  the  sys- 
tem. Where  are  these  "  checks  and  balances?"  Bishop 
Hamline  affirms  that  they  recognize  "  no  tribunal  to 
cure  errors  or  rectify  wrongs."  Mr.  .Johnson  avers, 
"  they  are  responsible  to  no  authority  but  their  own 


200  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

consciences  "  for  the  exercise  of  their  power.  Where, 
then,  are  its  "  checks  and  balances?"  We  claim,  then, 
that  all  our  positions  remain  impregnable. 

But  our  apology  for  disorders  among  Baptist  Churches, 
was  quite  lame.  So,  doubtless,  the  friends  of  monarchy 
think  in  regard  to  our  "  apologies  "  for  occasional  out- 
breaks in  our  popular  form  of  government — such  as  is 
now  rife  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts  in  regard  to  the 
fugitive  slave  law.  They  could,  no  doubt,  read  us 
many  lectures  upon  monarchy  as  being  a  "  system  of 
surpassing  energy."  Now,  the  only  reasons  why  we 
cannot  accept  the  remedy  which  "  our  Episcopacy"  pro- 
poses for  these  evils,  are.  First:  It  is  unscriptural,  as 
we  think;  Secondly:  It  is  worse  than  the  disease.  The  dead 
palsy  would  free  us  from  all  sensations  of  pain,  heat, 
cold,  wounds,  and  strokes.  It  is  a  "  system  of  surpass- 
ing energy."  Indeed,  it  is  a  kind  of  universal  panacea 
for  all  diseases.  Once  let  it  fasten  upon  the  system, 
and  we  are  molested  no  more  with  other  "  disorders." 
But ;  the  reader  can  supply  the  commentary. 

That  "  exceedingly  powerful  advice,"  given  at  the 
Tuskegee  ministers'  and  deacons'  meeting,  still  haunts 
ouf  brother's  imagination.  It  was  an  "inquisitorial 
tax!"  Now,  reader,  we  attended  that  meeting,  as  we 
have  already  informed  you,  and  participated  in  its  pro- 
ceedings in  some  humble  degree;  and  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  that  "threatened  exclusion"  and  "inquisito- 
rial tax"  was  this:  The  members  who  composed  that 
meeting,  expressed  their  opinions  in  two  resolutions, 
introduced  by  a  private  member — First:  That  covetous- 
ness  was  idolatry,  and  that  no  idolater  ought  to  be  re- 
tained in  the  Church.     This  is  the  "  threatened  exclu- 


METBODIST  EPISCOPACY.  201 

sion!"  Secondly:  That  in  meeting  the  necessary  ex- 
penses of  our  Churches,  we  ought  to  obey  the  rule  laid 
down  by  Paul,  viz.:  That  every  man  should  contribute 
"  according  as  God  had  prospered  him."  And  this  is 
the  "inquisitorial  taxation!"  The  issue  upon  these 
points  is  not  between  us  and  Brother  Hamill,  but  be- 
tween him  and  God's  word.  The  "fig  leaf"  was  placed 
there  by  the  divine  penmen.  Let  him  "tear  it  away" 
if  he  can. 

Yes,  we  do  cling  to  the  allegation,  that  your  bishops 
and  travelling  clergy  imposed  articles  of  faith  and  a 
form  of  government  upon  your  members  without  their 
consent.  The  Conference  which  adopted  your  Book  of 
Discipline  "  represented  themselves,  and  had  no  consti- 
tuents," says  Judge  Nelson.  "  He  who  has  no  right  to 
the  thing  he  possesses,"  says  Dr.  Barrow,  "  cannot  pre- 
scribe or  plead  any  length  of  time  to  make  his  posses- 
sion lawful."  If  the  original  exercise  of  this  power  were 
arbitrary;  if  it  "admitted  no  constituenc}' ;"  if  it  were 
underived ;  then  its  exercise  for  a  thousand  years  never 
can  make  it  anything  else.  We  have  a  practical  ques- 
tion to  ask — not  Brother  Ilamill,  nor  any  bishop  or  cler- 
gyman of  his  Church,  but  the  laity — those  who,  but  for 
the  occurrence  of  the  "  Church  Property  Case,"  we  Avould 
call  "the  Church," — and  it  is  this:  '^ If  the  adojytion  of 
your  form  of  government,  your  Epificopacy,  were  noto  an 
original  question,  and  your  General  Conference  were  to  grant 
you  the  same  privilege  which  the  National  Convention,  who 
formed  our  federal  constitution,  gave  to  the  several  States,  to 
receive  or  reject  it,  ITOW  MANY  OF  YOU  WOULD 
VOTE  FOR  IT?     How  many  of  you  would  adopt,  volun- 


202  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

tarily,  a  form  of  government,  if  your  rulers  would  allow  you 
the  privilege,  which  would  not  recognize  you  as  "constituenisV 
But  our  logic  upon  this  point  is  peculiarly  "Hender- 
sonian."  Now,  we  do  not  aspire  to  the  distinction  of 
founding  a  new  school  in  logic.  True,  it  does  require  a 
new  system  of  logic  to  evolve  the  "  Democratic  element" 
in  a  system  of  government  which  "  has  no  constituents." 
But  we  must  beg  our  brother  to  believe  us  sincere  when 
we  say,  we  are  too  modest  to  aspire  to  that  distinction. 
That  a  certain  proposition  should  be  either  true  or  false, 
"  is  sheer  nonsense,"  is  it?  Well,  if  our  brother  will 
enlighten  us  as  to  how  much  truth  and  falsehood  may 
dwell  together  in  the  same  proposition,  in  fraternal  sym- 
pathy, we  think  he  will  make  an  achievement  in  logic 
which  will  bear  the  palm  from  us!  "  Did  our  preachers 
manufacture  them?" — (faith  and  discipline,  we  suppose, 
he  means) — asks  Brother  Hamill.  "  They  organized  it," 
answers  Judge  Nelson;  "established  its  doctrines  and 
discipline,  appointed  the  several  authorities — superin- 
tendents or  bishops,  ministers  and  preachers — to  ad- 
minister its  polity,  and  promulgate  its  doctrines  and 
teaching  throughout  the  land."  And  yet,  for  saying  that 
the  bishops  and  clergy,  in  "  establishing  its  doctrines 
and  discipline,"  imposed  them  upon  the  Churches  with- 
out their  consent^we  utter  "  sheer  nonsense!"  "If  that 
body  (the  General  Conference)  had  chosen  to  become 
SociNiAN,"  says  Mr.  Lord,  "  if  it  had  chosen  to  adopt  the 
Presbyterian  or  Baptist  forms,  either  of  government  or 
doctrine,  it  was  in  its  power  to  do  it."  Why?  "  Be- 
cause," says  Mr.  Johnson,  "  it  admitted  no  constituency." 
How  is  the  weather  now.  Brother  Hamill — "hot"  or 
"  cold?"     Is  our  "logic  lucid"  enough? 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  203 

"  Our  fathers  taught  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  con- 
tained all  things  necessary  to  salvation."  Very  well; 
■we  only  wish  their  children  would  believe  them. 

But  "  in  strictness  of  speech,  there  can  be  no  such 
thing  as  the  Baptist  Church."  True,  Brother  Hamill, 
and  we  thank  God  for  it.  Baptists  repudiate  such  ver- 
nacular as  implies  such  a  centralization  of  power  as  that 
phrase  does.  We  have  Baptist  Churches — but  to  apply 
the  term  "  The  Baptist  Chukch"  to  this  community  of 
Churches,  is  a  phrase  not  of  our  coining.  In  the  New 
Testament,  when  a  single  Church  is  intended,  it  is  so 
named — "  the  Church  at  Ephesus" — "  the  Church  at 
Corinth,"  &c.  But  when  a  district  of  country  is  alluded 
to,  in  which  there  are  several  Churches,  the  phraseology 
is  changed,  and  we  read  of  "  the  seven  Churches  of 
Asia," — "  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  saints,"  &c.  Kow, 
suppose  we  adopt  Bro.  Hamill's  "strictness  of  speech," 
as  applicable  to  "our  Episcppacy"  and  see  how  it  will 
work.  It  is  claimed  that  there  are  nearly  a  million  and 
a  half  of  members  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States.  (It  is  onl}^  however,  according  to 
the  latest  statistics  that  we  have  seen,  about  one  mil- 
lion three  hundred  thousand.)  In  the  "  Church  Property 
Case,"  it  was  argued  by  the  counsel,  that  "  the  minis- 
ters were  the  Cuurcu,"  and  decided  by  the  Court,  tlui,t» 
these  ministers,  the  bishops  and  travelling  preachers,' 
when  assembled  in  Conference,  accovdmg  to  the  rules' 
and  usages  of  the  Cliurch,  represented  themselves,  and« 
"had  no  constituents."-  Therefore,  "in  .strictness  of 
speech,"  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Ciiurch  in  the  .United' 
States,  instead  of  liaving  nearly  a  million  and  a  half, 
have  only  a  membership  of  between  six  and  seven  thou- 


204  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

sand!"  "0,  what  a  fall  was  there,  my  coiTntrymenl" 
That  "  strictness  of  speech,"  Brother  Hamill,  is  no  mean 
scythe,  to  cut  off  so  many  heads  at  one  stroke.  Truly, 
is  "our  Episcopacy"  a  "terrible  army  with  banners!" 

"  Where  there  is  no  legislature,  and  your  own  autho- 
rities tell  us  you  have  none,  there  can  be  no  legislative 
representatives."  Most  truly  spoken,  Brother  Hamill, 
and  we  thank  you  for  the  compliment.  And  if  you  will 
not  esteem  it  arrogance  in  us,  we  will  undertake  to  en- 
lighten you  a  little  now,  and  more  hereafter,  when  this 
discussion  closes,  upon  Baptist  sentiments  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  do  most  religiously  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  and  evangelists  did  all  the  legislation 
necessary  for  his  Churches  in  all  ages.  We  believe  that 
the  "  creed"  and  "form  of  government"  which  they  draft- 
ed, and  which  is  know^i  as  the  New  Testament,  is  the 
product  of  infinite  wisdom.  As  Christ  only  can  know 
what  is  pleasing  to  himself,  we  are  afraid  to  "  add 
to"  or  "  take  from  "  that  document,  a  single  "jot  or 
tittle."  If  it  had  been  written  by  uninspired  men,  like 
"  our  Book  of  Discipline,"  it  might  have  needed  "  mend- 
ing;" but,  as  it  emanated  from  Him  who  "saw  the  end 
from  beginning"  we  feel  incompetent  to  add  anything 
to  it  by  our  "  legislation."  If  we  can  understand  and 
apply  its  teachings  to  the  objects  intended,  it  is  all  that 
we  aspire  to.  The  lustre  of  the  sun  at  mid-day  would 
not  likely  be  much  increased  by  the  addition  of  a  few 
flickering  tapers. 

We  confess,  Brother  Hamill  is  leading  us  into  some 
light  upon  the  sacramental  communion  question.  He 
informs  us  that  he  would  not  hesitate  to  administer  the 
communion  to  persons  baptized  in  any  way  (and  so  we 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  205 

say,  provided  they  have  been  baptized);  and  that  Roman 
Catholic  baptism  is  just  as  current  as  any  other  (a 
pretty  long'  stride  toward  Rome,  we  think);  and  still 
further — if  they  have  not  been  baptized  at  all,  and  give  evi- 
dence of  a  desire  to  flee  the  wrath  to  come,  &c.,  he  is 
ready  to  commune  with  them.  We  say  Brother  Hamill 
is  enlightening  us — First:  we  begin  now  to  understand 
the  import  of  a  phrase  quite  common  among  his  breth- 
ren. It  is  very  usual  for  them  to  characterize  their  de- 
nomination as  "  a  branch  of  the  Church."  Methodism 
was  established  b^  a  "  presbyter"  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. The  English  Cliurch  was  established  by  a  Catholic 
King,  Henry  VIII.  So  that  the  English  Episcopal  Church 
becomes  the  connecting  link  between  "  the  branch"  and 
the  original  "  stock."  Our  brother's  Roman  Catholic 
proclivities  arc  quite  significant.  Traces  of  the  family 
likeness  are  preserved  with  singular  faithfulness  and  te- 
nacity even  to  the  third  generation.  But,  secondly:  it 
matters  not  whether  the  applicant  for  communion  has 
ever  been  baptized  in  any  way,  or  by  anybody;  our  bro- 
ther will  not  refuse  the  communion  to  him  on  that  ac- 
count !  Well,  "  a  decent  respect  for  the  opinions  of  man- 
kind" has  always  induced  writers  on  religious  subjects 
to  give  one  of  two  reasons  at  least  for  every  item  of 
faith  and  practice  which  they  may  adopt.  Either,  first, 
it  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or,  secondly,  it  is  taught 
in  the  "  Fathers."  That  is,  it  is  either  scriptural  or  tra- 
ditional. True,  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the 
two;  but  as  already  intimated,  it  is  common  even 
among  Catholics  to  allege  one  or  the  other  of  these. 
But  our  brother  docs  neither.  Now,  we  say,  if  there  is 
a  single  precept  or  example  in  all  God's  word  to  autho- 
18 


206  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

rize  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  an  un- 
baptized  person,  it  was  in  his  power  to  have  produced 
it.  But  this  he  has  not  pretended  to  do.  And  as  to  the 
other,  to  wit:  the  teachings  of  the  "Fathers"  we  will 
quote  for  our  brother's  special  edification,  the  declara- 
tion of" Dr.  Wall:  "  No  Church  ever  gave  the  communion 
to  any  persons  before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all 
the  absurdities  that  were  ever  held,  none  ever  main- 
tained that  any  person  should  partake  of  the  communion 
before  they  were  baptized."— Hist.  Inf.  Bap.,  part  ii.  ch. 
9.  Were  it  necessary,  we  could  make  similar  quota- 
tions from  Justin  Martyr,  Jerome,  Austin,  Bede,  &c., 
among  the  ancient  fathers;  and  from  Drs.  Man  ton,  Dod- 
dridge, D wight,  &c.,  among  modern  divines. 

Will  Brother  Hamill  answer  us  the  following  plain 
questions,  without  any  circumlocution? 

First:  Does  the  Discipline  authorize  him  to  administer 
the  communion  to  any  person  who  is  guilty  of  that  for 
which  he  would  be  excluded  from  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church? 

Second:  Would  a  man  be  excluded  from  that  Church 
for  persistently  inveighing  against  its  doctrines  and 
discipline?     And 

Thirdly:  If  such  offensive  person  should  happen  to 
be  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Baptist,  would  the  offence  be 
less  on  that  account? 

If  our  brother  had  lived  contemporaneous  with  Paul, 
he  might  have  saved  that  Apostle  a  deal  of  trouble. 
He  might  have  said  to  him:  "Why,  Paul,  why  don't  you 
frame  your  ecclesiastical  government  after  the  model  of 
'our  Episcopacy!'  Why  put  yourself  to  the  trouble  of 
writing  to  the  various  Churches,  entreating  them  to  ar- 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  20T 

rest  the  tide  of  'anarchy  and  confusion,  inaccurately 
styled  .  .  .  Church  government?'  Just  accept  our  pa- 
nacea for  all  these  evils — our  'system  of  surpassing  en- 
ergy' will  soon  quell  all  these  'disorders'  vphich  give 
you  so  much  pain!  Let  them  know  that  'the  will'  of 
their  pastors  and  teachers  'is  omnipotent  in  the  pre- 
mises;' thsit  they  are  not  'constituents;'  that  'not  a  mo- 
dicum of  power'  has  ever  been  committed  to  them.  Do 
this,  Paul,  and,  my  word  for  it,  the  Churches  will  no 
more  be  troubled  with  '  anarchy  and  confusion !'  "  "True," 
Paul  might  have  replied,  "we  have  already  exhorted  the 
Churches  to  'Stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith. Christ 
hath  made  them  free,  and  to  be  not  entangled  again  with 
the  yoke  of  bondage;'  and  with  what  face  can  we  now 
recall  that  exhortation.  No!  We  have  no  such  custom; 
neither  the  Churches  of  God." 

Then,  too,  we  have  "charged  the  bishops  with  du- 
plicity," &c.  We  have  quoted  what  Mr.  Wesley  said, 
and  what  the  bishops  and  travelling  preachers  did,  and 
left  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  inference.  One  party 
says  that  Mr.  Wesley  "preferred  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
Church  government  to  any  other,  and  that  he  ordained 
Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.  to  the  Episcopal  office,"  &c.  The 
other  party  (Mr.  Wesley)  says,  he  "had  rather  be  call- 
ed a  knave,  a.  fool,  a  rascal,  or  a  scoundrel,  than  to  be  call- 
ed a  bishopT  We  have  put  these  two  statements  to- 
gether; and  if  "duplicity"  is  the  result,  we  are  not 
answerable. 

In  Baptist  Churches,  men  enter  the  ministry  by  the 
joint  co-operation  of  the  Clmrch  and  its  eldership;  so 
that  Brother  Mercer's  opinions  are  just  those  which  are 
entertained  by  all  his  Baptist  brethren. 


208  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

We  have  not  "abandoned  our  position  on  the  Church 
Property  question"  yet,  Brother  Hamill,  as  you  will  have 
seen  in  the  first  part  of  this  article.  As  to  the  publica- 
tion of  a  "deed"  of  some  Methodist  Church,  that  vt^ere  a 
"Work  of  supererogation,  since  we  have  the  decision  of  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court  upon  the  "  Property  Ques- 
tion." If  the  right  to  the  "  Church  property"  does  not 
vest  in  the  bishops  and  travelling  preachers,  how  could 
they  have  transferred  "all  the  churches,  colleges,  ceme- 
teries," &c.  &c.,  South,  to  the  Southern  division  of  that 
Church?  How  could  they  have  divided  the  "  Book 
Fund?"     The.  laws  of  the  country  have  settled  that  question. 

But  our  insinuation  in  reference  to  Bishops  McKen- 
dree  and  Bascom  "  was  utterly  unworthy  of "  us!  Let 
us  see.  Before  they  were  elevated  to  the  bishop's  chair, 
they  were  loud  in  their  denunciations  of  this  "system  of 
surpassing  energy."  McKendree  went  so  far  as  to 
withdraw  from  the  Conference,  on  account- of  the  des- 
potic sway  of  its  bishops.  Bascom  declared  that  its 
rulers  were  '^  de  facto,  religious  tyrants,  because  they  as- 
sumed and  exercised  rights  that  do  not  and  can  not  in 
the  nature  of  things  belong  to  them." — Rights,  dc,  Art. 
It.  After  the  mitre  was  placed  upon  their  heads,  all 
these  complaints  were  hushed.  That  silence  was  ominous  of 
something.  They  were  but  men — were  not  beyond  the 
power  of  temptation.  If  they  had  retracted  their  for- 
mer positions  and  gained  nothing  by  it,  then  our  brother 
might  with  some  propriety  say  that  "insinuation  was 
unworthy  of  us,"  and  that  we  "could  not  credit  it"  our- 
self.  If,  for  example,  A  and  B  were  to  be  heard  in  the 
streets  of  our  town,  denouncing  one  of  the  political  par- 
ties of  the  country  as  being  rfe/acfo,  political  "tyrants," 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  ^9, 

&c. ;  and  soon  afterwards  were  suddpuly  to  iDecome  si- 
lent, and  be  promoted  to  some  high  position  of  honor 
and  profit  by  that  same  party,  it  would  look  a  little  ms- 
picious;  and  people  would  talk,  and  they  would  likely 
express  what  they  believed.  The/rtc/5  are  undeniable; 
the  inference  is  not  unreasonable.* 

Moreover,  we  "have  misapprehended  Methodism" — 
have  "created  a  man  of  straw,"  and  battled  him  "vali- 
antly," &c.  Perhaps  so.  A  certain  Methodist  clergy- 
man, not  a  thousand  miles  from  Tuskegee,  recently  said 
in  the  presence  of  a  number  of  friends,  that  neither  we 
nor  Brother  Hamill  understood  Episcopal  Methodism! 
Ifi  what  impenetrable  mj^stery  must  "our  Episcopacy" 
be  enshrouded,  that  it  cannot  be  understood  by  either 
friend  or  foe!  But  however  this  may  be,  "our  man  of 
straw"  is  lifting  "a  long,  loud,  general"  note  of  madden- 
ed fury,  througli  its  "Advocatesf^  which  means  some- 
thing. 

For  the  extent  to  which  Methodism  admits  "lay  dele- 
gation and  lay  management,"  see  first  part  of  this 
article. 

But  we  misapprehended  Bishop  Hamline's  remarks  in 
our  last,  because,  forsooth,  we  quoted  them  "second- 
handed."  Now,  our  brother  ought  to  inform  himself  a 
little  better  before  he  makes  grave  assertions  of  this 
kind.  We  quoted  Bishop  Hamline,  to  prove  the  autho- 
rity of  the  clergy,  from  a  bishop  down  to  a  circuit  rider. 
We  quoted  him  to  prove  that  the  system  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy  was  one  of  clerical  absolutism;  that  their 
will  was  "  an  end  of  all  strife,"  or,  as  he  expresses  it, 

•  See  Appendix  E. 


210  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

"omnipotent  in  the  premises y  And  we  maintain  that  the 
quotation  was  apropos,  and  rightly  construed.  We  quot- 
ed, too,  from  a  copy  of  the  Minutes  of  that  Conference, 
in  our  possession.  If  our  brother  will  step  into  our  office, 
and  will  believe  his  own  eyes,  we  think  we  can  prove  to 
him  that  we  have  no  occasion  to  use  "second-handed 
quotations"^  from  any  source,  upon  any  point  involved 
in  this  discussion.  Does  he  suppose  that  we  have  ever 
doubted  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  depose 
or  expel  a  bishop,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  Bishop 
Andrew  ^vas  deposed  for  being  a  slave-holder? 

We  "blundered"  forsooth,  in  quoting  from  Bishop 
Hamline's  speech!  Did  we  not  quote  him  accurately? 
Did  we  not  quote  all  that  referred  to  the  immediate 
point  we  were  discussing — to  wit:  the  power  of  the 
bishop,  elder,  and  circuit  rider?  Was  it  expected  that 
we  should  transfer  the  entire  speech  into  our  columns? 
The  charge  of  "garbling"  is  too  puerile  to  be  seriously 
answered. 

In  saying  that  "  the  word  of  a  bishop  was  the  end 
of  all  strife,"  we  said  nothing  stronger  than  that  "  his 
will  is  omnipotent  in  the  premises." — But  we  deem  it 
due  to  all  parties  to  state  that  a  bishop  as  such  cannot 
reinstate  an  expelled  member.  The  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence and  the  Annual  and  General  Conference  can.  The 
principle  is  the  same,  however.  It  is  this — that  the 
clergy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  can  reinstate 
an  excluded  member  or  preacher  over  the  head  of  the 
very  Church  from  which  he  was  expelled.  The  power 
that  does  this,  is  "  our  Episcopacy." 

But  we  must  close.  In  our  next  article,  we  propose 
presenting  "A  striking"  cowiras^  "  between  the  govern- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  211 

ment  of  tbe  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States."  With  the  avowed  intention 
of  presenting"  the  harmony  of  Episcopacy  and  Eepubli- 
canism,  our  brother  fills  up  most  of  his  article  in  berat- 
ing the  Baptists  for  their  anarchy.  What  a  philippic 
could  our  brother  write  against  the  Apostolic  Churches  1 
Taking  Paul's  declarations  in  regard  to  the  incestuous 
person,  I  Cor.  v.  1,  or  his  account  of  "  brothers  going 
to  law  with  brother,"  as  "  our  Episcopacy"  recently  did; 
or  James'  question,  "  Whence  come  wars  and  fightings 
among  you?"  &c.,  how  eloquently  could  he  discourse  of 
the  "  anarchy  and  confusion"  of  these  Churches?  Hav- 
ing gleaned  from  various  sources  some  half  a  dozen 
cases  of  "disorders  and  strifes,"  among  the  "ten  thous- 
and" Baptist  Churches  in  the  United  States,  he  gravely 
alleges,  that  these  are  to  establish  the  general  principle, 
that  "  anarchy"  is  rife  throxtghout  the  whole  denomination! 
"  What  lucid  logic!"  It  is  a  work,  too,  "  not  congenial 
with  his  spirit.".  (!)  Very  well:  When  a  man  sets  out 
to  do  one  thing,  and  does  another,  it  creates  a  suspicion 
that  it  is  not  very  uncongenial.  By  the  way,  it  is  not 
a  little  amusing  to  hear  our  brother  talk  about  "  rulers 
among  us,"  (the  Baptists,)  after  demonstrating  to  his 
own  satisfaction  the  "anarchy  and  confusion"  of  Bap- 
tist Churches.  We  bad  supposed  that  "  anarchy  and 
confusion  "  reigned  where  there  were  no  "  rulers."  And 
docs  he  really  suppose  that  those  who  adopt  the  New 
Testament  "  as  their  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice," 
really  have  "  no  Church  government?"  Baptists,  like 
other  "  even  good  but  fallible  men,"  may  err  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  principles  of  the  inspired  volume  in  cer- 
tain cases,  but  to  say  that  those  who  adopt  it  as  the 


212  A  DISCUSSION  ON  < 

only  standard  of  appeal  in  all  cases  both  of  doctrine 
and  discipline,  have  no  government,  is  just  saying,  that 
Christ  and  his  inspired  Apostles  were  either  incompe- 
tent or  indifferent  to  the  task  of  furnishing  rules  to 
govern  the  very  bodies  which  they  themselves  organ- 
ized. Where  are  the  "  symbols  of  faith,  called  creeds," 
which  were  "points  of  union  among  Christians"  in  the 
Apostolic  age?  Are  they  the  New  Testament?  If  so, 
had  they  no  "Church  governmentV^  Or  if  not,  how  comes 
it  that  those  who  have  the  same  constitution  which  they  had, 
have  "  what  is  inaccurately  styled  .  .  .  Church  govern- 
ment?" To  such  absurdities  are  "  even  good  but  falli- 
ble men"  driven,  who,  forsaking  the  inspired  rule,  "  hew 
out  to  themselves  cisterns,  broken  cisterns  that  can 
hold  no  water."  However,  for  his  decided  proclivity  to 
"  look  upon  the  Christian  enterprize,  and  sweet  piety 
of  many  of  our  members,"  we  are  greatly  obliged.  And 
we  assure  him  that  similar  characteristics  among  our 
Methodist  brethren  ever  have,  and  ever  will,  we  trust, 
awaken  our  kindest  Christian  regards,  their  Episcopacy 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

August  16th,  1855. 


We  accept  our  brother's  explanation  of  the  charge  of 
"  falsehood."  The  point  of  our  complaint  was  in  refer- 
ence to  the  facts  we  had  stated,  not  the  arguments  we 
had  used. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  213 


"We  have  waited  several  weeks  on  Brother  Hamill, 
and  received  nothing-  more  from  him;  and  as  the  Asso- 
ciations and  Fall  Meetings  are  at  hand,  and  as  we  ex- 
pect to  attend  a  number  of  them,  we  desire  to  close  the 
discussion  as  early  as  possible.  Without  any  further 
delay,  therefore,  we  publish  the  following  as  our  last 
article: 

THE  CONTRAST. 

The  contrast  bptween  Methodist  Episcopacy  and  our  civil  govern- 
ments, State  and  National,  in  seventeen  distinct  and  fundamental 
points;  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the  only  denomination 
of  Protestants  in  the  United  States,  from  whose  ecclesiastical 
bodies  all  laymen  are  excluded  by  constitutional  law;  Not  a  fact 
contested  which  has  been  alleged  in  the  discussion;  The  "  Demo- 
cratic element  "  in  Episcopal  Methodism,  if  it  exists  at  all,  must 
exist  notwithstanding  all  these  facts;  Synopsis  and  application  of 
the  argument;  Conclusion. 


Letter  to  Messrs.  David  Clopton,  John  B.  Bilbro,  and  Robert  L. 
Mayes. 

"  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  they 
that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them.      But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you." — Jb- 

IU8  CURIBT. 

"  Sometime!  it  is  said  that  man  cannot  be  trusted  with  the  government  of  himself. 
Can  he  then  be  truste<l  with  the  government  of  others?  Or  have  we  found  angels  m  the 
form  of  kings,  to  govern  him?  Let  hi^torv  answer  this  question." — Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, the  Apostle  of  American  Republicanism. 

"  As  long  as  [  live,  tuk  People  shall  have  no  share  in  choosing  either  stewards  or 
leaders  among  the  Methodists.  We  have  not.  nor  ever  had,  any  such  custom.  We  are 
no  Republicans,  and  never  intend  to  be."— Jobm  Wesley,  the  Apostle  of  Americaa 
Methodism, 

We  come  now  to  the  interesting  task  of  tracing-  the 
contrast  between  our  Republican  institutions  and  Me- 


214  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

thodist  Episcopacy.  Brother  Hamill  has  given  us  the 
"  striking  analogy" — we  propose  presenting  the  oppo- 
site side.     And  let  us  again  begin  at  the  beginning. 

First.  Tne  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Constitutions  of  each  State  of  the  confederacy,  were 
formed  by  representatives  chosen  by  the  People  in  their 
sovereign  capacity.  The  Constitution,  or  Book  of  "Dis- 
cipline and  Doctrines"  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  formed  by  sixty  clergymen,  appointed  and  sum- 
moned to  their  work  by  two  Englishmen,  Asbury  and 
Coke.  There  was  not  a  single  layman,  or  a  layman's 
representative,  in  the  Conference  of  1184,  that  drafted 
it.  "  They  admitted  no  coiislituencyr  ''They  were  absolutely 
an  aristocracy."-^ 

Secondly.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  each  State,  when  drafted  by  their  several  Conven- 
tions of  representatives  from  the  people,  were,  by  spe- 
cial ordinances,  submitted  back  directly  to  the  People 
for  their  ratification.  The  Constitution  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy  was  adopted  and  forced  upon  their  (we  wish 
we  could  say  "  constituency,"  but  by  the  decision  of  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court,  "  they  have  no  constituen- 
cy,") membership  without  even  the  form  of  a  voluntary 
recognition  of  such  power  as  was  assumed  by  said  Con- 
ference. No  layman  was  ever  asked  to  cast  his  suf- 
frages by  way  of  adopting  that  document. 

Thirdly.  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  several  States,  before  they  are  con- 
sidered binding,  are  submitted  to  their  respective  con- 
stituencies for  their  ratification:    Amendments  to  the 

*  Ch,  Prop.  Case,  page  331. 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  '  215 

Constitution  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  though  more  or 
less  of  them  are  made  at  every  General  Conference, 
we  believe,  are  foisted  upon  the  Churches,  nolens  volens, 
by  the  mere  prerogative  of  this  body.  In  this,  also, 
"  Ihey  admit   no  constituency — they  have  no  constituency P^ 

Fourthlj-.  The  President  and  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  Governor  of  each  State,  the 
highest  oflScers  recognized  by  the  General  and  State 
governments,  are  chosen  directly  by  the  People  every 
two,  three,  and  four  years,  thereby  securing  a  frequent 
reckoning  with  these  officers,  and  preventing  any  abuse 
of  the  power  thus  delegated  to  them :  The  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  chosen  for  life,  or  dur- 
ing good  behavior,  by  the  dergy  who  compose  the  General 
Conference,  and  who,  when  assembled,  "represent  them- 
selves^ and  have  no  constituents."  They  are  "  responsible 
only  to  their  own  consciences  "  for  the  manner  in  which 
they  exercise  their  "  unlimited  ecclesiastical  and  tem- 
poral power." 

Fifthly.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Legislatures  of  the  several  States,  are  composed  of  del- 
egates elected  by  the  suffrages  of  the  several  States,  or 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States,  and  hold  their  offices 
one,  two,  three,  and  six  years,  and  are,  therefore,  re- 
sponsible directly  to  the  people  for  their  official  conduct: 
The  Annual  and  Quadrennial  Conferences  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  are  composed,  ex  officio,  "  of  the 
bishops  and  travelling  preachers,"  and  their  representa- 
tives. No  layman  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
ever  cast  a  single  ballot  for  a  representative  to  cither  a 
State  or  a  General  Conference. 

*  Appendix  to  Prop.  Case,  page  11. 


216  *  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Sixthly.  In  our  civil  institutions,  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation is  the  entire  population  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  each  respective  State,  except  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  in  which,  for  wise  purposes,  the  sov- 
ereignty of  each  State  is  represented:  In  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  basis  of  representation  is  the 
travelling  clergy  in  the  bounds  of  each  State. 

Seventhly.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  Legislature  of  each  respective  State,  admit  and  re- 
present a  constituency,  to  whom  they  are  responsible 
for  their  acts  and  doings:  But  the  bishops  and  travel- 
ling preachers  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
"  comprise  the  embodiment  of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and 
temporal;  and  when  assembled  in  General  Conference, 
according  to  the  usage  and  discipline  of  the  Church, 
represent  themselves  and  have  no  constituents."  So  afiSrms 
Judge  Nelson,  in  Property  case. 

Eighthly.  Our  civil  Constitutions  recognize  "  checks 
and  balances  " — tribunals  to  "  correct  errors  and  rectify 
wrongs," — thus  affording  relief  to  the  injured  and  op- 
pressed sufferer:  In  the  Constitution  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  "  the  will "  of  the  circuit  rider,  or 
elder,  or  bishop,  in  removing  an  officer,  "  is  omnipotent 
in  the  premises" — if  an  incumbent  "  is  unjustly  removed, 
he  must  siihnil " — since  "  there  is  no  tribunal  to  cure  the 
error  or  rectify  the  wrong'."  So  affirms  ex-bishop 
Hamline. 

Ninthly.  In  our  State  and  National  governments,  the 
people  possess  and  exercise  the  right,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  choose  every  officer,  Legislative,  Executive, 
and  Judicial,  to  enact,  expound,  and  administer  law, 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States  down  to  the 
niost  humble  functionary  recognized  in  our  civil  polity: 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  211 

In  the  system  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  the  bishops  and 
travelling  preachers  appoint  every  officer  from  a  bishop 
down  to  a  class-leader,  "being  responsible  only  to  their 
own  consciences  "  for  the  manner  in  which  this  author- 
ity is  exercised.  Their  "  will  is  omnipotent  in  the 
premises." 

Tenthly:  The  right  of  petition  for  redress  of  griev- 
ances, is  clearly  recogni^d  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  each  State.  But  when  such  a 
right  is  attempted  to  be  exercised  by  the  local  preach- 
ers and  private  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  least  privilege  which  any  form  of  govern- 
ment can  recognize,  the  bishops  of  that  Church  answer: 
'^Pardon  us  if  we  know  no  sitch  rights,  if  we  comprehend  no 
such  2}Tivileges"*^ 

Eleventhly:  The  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  each  State,  is  a  government  of  the  people  and  their  chosen 
representatives — a  Democratic  Republic:  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  "  as  regards  its  government,"  says 
the  Hon.  R.  Johnson,  in  his  speech,  in  the  "  Church  Pro- 
perty Case,"  "has  been  absolutely,  since  the  days  of  Wesley, 
AN  ARISTOCRACY!  Laymen  liave  had,  and  now  have, 
no  voice  in  it."  "  If  there  is  a  layman  within  the  sound 
of  my  voice,"  continues  Mr.  Johnson,  "he  knows  he  has 
no  voice  now." — Property  Case,  p.  331. 

Twelfthly:  Congress,  and  our  State  legislatures,  arc 
bodies  of  limited  powers;  they  have  no  authority  what- 
ever to  change  or  modify  our  present  forms  of  civil  go- 
vernment: The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  is  "the  source  and  fountain  of  all  its 

•  Circular  of  Gen.  Coa.  of  1821. 
19 


218  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

temporal  power,"  says  Judge  Nelson;  nay,  it  "compris- 
es the  embodiment  of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal"- 
It  is  "a  body  unlimited  in  its  authority  to  create,-^  says 
Mr.  Johnson,  and  "equally  unlimited  in  the  authority  to 
destroy;  responsible  only  to  their  consciences  for  the 
manner  in  which  either  authority  is  exercised."  "  If 
that  body  had  chosen  to  become  Socinian,"  says  Mr. 
Lord,  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  claimants — "  if  it  had 
chosen  to  adopt  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  forms,  either 
of  government  or  doctrine,  it  toas  in  its  2)o^ver  to  do  it;  there 
WAS  NO  LIMIT.     They  represented  the  Church;  they  were 

THE  Church The  laity  ivere  not  known  in  the 

governing  body.  Matters  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
everything,  were  in  the  governing  body.  If  that  was 
so  up  to  1808,  what  was  that  body  after  that  period? 
It  was  the  same  General  Conference^ — Property  Case,  p. 
163. 

Thirtecnthly:  The  first  paragraph  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  alleges  that  "We,  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union, 
establish  justice,  ensure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide 
for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our 
posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for 
the  United  States  of  America."  ^The  first  section  of  the 
"  Book  of  Discipline"  alleges  that,  as  Mr.  Wesley  "  pre- 
ferred the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government  to  any 
other,  he  solemnly  set  apart,  by  the  imposition  of  hands 

and  prayer  ....  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D a  presbyter 

of  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  Episcopal  office;  and 
having  delivered  to  him  letters  of  Episcopal  orders,  commission- 
ed and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Francis  Asbury,  .... 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  219 

for  the  same  Episcopal  office."  That  is,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  established  their  foi'in  of  government: 
One  man,  John  Wesley,  according  to  the  Discipline,  autho- 
rized the  establishment  of  the  government  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church.  The  truth  of  this  statement 
in  regard  to  Mr.  Wesley's  ordaining  Dr..  Coke  "to  the 
Episcopal  office,"  we  have  already  examined,  and,  as  we 
think,  proved  it  to  be  entirely  inexact;  but  as  the  govern- 
mental economy  of  that  Church  is  to  be  ascertained  by 
the  Discipline,  it  is  right  and  proper  that  we  should  re- 
fer to  all  its  statements  in  this  connection,  as  if  they 
were  true. 

Fourteenthly:  In  the  goyernment  of  tlie  United  States, 
and  of  each  separate  State,  the  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  departments  of  government,  are  placed  in 
the  hands  of  three  distinct  classes  of  officers,  each  operat- 
ing as  a  check  upon  the  others.  Thiis,  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  governor  of  each  State,  being 
elected  by  the  people,  and  therefore  representing  their 
sovereignty,  possess  the  veto  power  to  check  hasty  or 
unconstitutional  legislation.  And  Congress  and  State 
legislatures  possess  the  power  of  passing  a  law  by  a. 
two-third  vote,  notwithstanding  the  veto  of  the  chief 
executive,  thus  interposing  a  salutary  check  upon  this 
prerogative.  And  the  judiciary,  being  the  exponent  of 
the. constitutionality  of  all  laws,  becomes  another  check 
upon  the  legislative  department.  But  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judi- 
cial departments  of  government  ai-e  all  in  the  same 
hands.  And  this  body  of  men  are  not  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  but,  as  Judge  Nelson  declares, 
"  when  assembled  in  Conference,  represent  themselves,  and 


220  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

have  no  constituents."  "Where  such  a  body  of  men," 
says  the  late  Bishop  Bascom,  "first  make  the  laws,  then 
execute  them,  and,  finally,  are  the  sole  judges  of  their 
own  acts,  there  is  no  liberty;  the  people  are  virtually  en- 
slaved, and  liable  to  be  ruined  at  any  time." — Rights,  (&c. 
Art.  %,  In  a  word;  all  power,  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial,  known  in  the  governmental  economy  of 
that  Church,  is  lodged  in  the  hands  of  its  clergy.  "Not 
a  modicum  of  power,"  says  Mr.  Johnson,  "  was  left  else- 
where." 

Pifteenthly:  The  great  fundamental  principle  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  our  civil  governments,  State  and 
National,  is,  that  they  are  representative.  In  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  ii5 1824  and  1828,  an  efibrt 
was  made  by  numerous  petitioners,  local  preachers  and 
private  members,  to  modify  their  form  of  government, 
so  as  to  make  it  representative,  and  the  memorialists 
were  sternly  rebuked  by  the  bishops  of  that  Church,  in 
the  very  language  of  despotism  itself:  "Pardon  us  if  we 
know  no  such  rights,  if  loe  comprehend  no  such  privileges'^ 
The  only  efforts  which  have  ever  been  made  to  incor- 
porate into  -its  economy  the  essential  element  of  Repub- 
licanism, have  been  and  are  now  denounced  as  schism- 
atical,  and  its  promoters  suspended  and  expelled  from 
the  ministry  and  Church;  and  yet  there  is  a  most 
striking  analogy  between  Methodist  Episcopacy  and 
our  Republican  form  of  government!!  Nay,  further,  if 
a  man  doubts  its  Republicanism,  he  is  to  be  denounced 
as  a  "  bigot,"  a  "  demagogue,"  and  sundry  other  amiable 
epithets  must  be  applied  to  him  by  the  champions  of 
this  hierarchy!  Now,  we  do  solemnly  protest,  that  a 
man's  Christian  charity  ought  not  to  be  measured  by  the 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  221 

dimensions  of  his  throat  to  swallow  "our  Episcopacy!" 
We  do  protest  that  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  base  his 
love  for  his  fellow  Christians  upon  some  other  "points 
of  union"  besides  this  "  system  of  surpassing  energy" — 
that  he  may  love  their  virtues  without  endorsing  their 
errors — and  that  personal  piety  maj^  be  one  thing,  and 
clerical  ahsobUism  may  be  a  different  thing". 

Sixteenthly.  Our  civil  Constitutions,  State  and  Na- 
tional, recognize  the  principle,  "That  all  power  is  inherent 
in  the  peo2)lc:"  In  the  Methodist  economy,  all  potver  is  in- 
herent in  the  clergy. — "  If  they  had  chosen  to  become 
Socinian  ....  they  could  have  done  so.  There  was  no 
limit,"  said  Mr.  Lord.     Propel-ty  Case,  p.  163. 

Seventeenthly.  In  our  civil  government,  the  property 
is  held  by  tlie  people,  and  even  the  small  pittance  which 
is  used  for  State  and  National  purposes,  is  subject  to 
the  direction  of  their  representatives:  In  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  Church  property  is  held  and  dis- 
posed of  by  the  clergy.  Even  the  trustees  who  hold 
the  property,  are  to  be  appointed  by  the  "preacher 
in  charge,  or  the  presiding  elder  of  the  district,  all  of 
whom  are  to  be  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church."  Discipline,  last  edition,  p.  218.  The  appoint- 
ment of  these  trustees  is  the  amount  of  "  lay  representa- 
tion and  lay  management"  of  which  our  brother  so 
frequently  boasts.  This  "lay  representation  and  lay 
management "  amounts  to  about  as  much  as  the  "  re- 
presentation and  management"  of  ordinary  clerks  in  a 
mercantile  establishment.  Tliey  can  only  execute  the 
orders  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  General  or  State 
Conferences.  Tliis  every  reader  can  see  by  turning  to 
the  Discipline,  pp.  209,  214  and  pp.  256,  257.- 


222  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

We  could  trace  this  contrast  much  further;  but  the 
foregoing  points  are  deemed  sufRcient  for  our  present 
purpose.  We  will  only  add,  in  closing  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, THAT  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 
IS  THE  ONLY  DENOMINATION  OF  PROTEST- 
ANTS ON  THIS  CONTINENT,  FROM  WHOSE  EC- 
CLESIASTICAL COUNSELS  ALL  LAYMEN  ARE 
EXCLUDED  BY  CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW.  If  aline 
were  drawn  upon  the  subject  of  Church  government 
between  all  professing  Christians  in  this  country,  on 
one  side  of  it  would  be  arrayed  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  communions — on  the  other  all 
other  Protestant  denominations.  To  what  extent  Me- 
thodists are  charmed  with  their  company,  and  how  long 
they  will  keep  it  the  future  must  show.  We  have  not 
placed  Methodism  there.  This  was  the  work  of  its  first 
apostles.  We  have  only  hung  the  lamp  of  truth  over 
the  arcana  of  the  system,  and  are  not  responsible  for  its 
revelations.     Other  hands  must  apply  the  corrective. 

The  reader  will  observe,  that  not  one  fact  that  we 
have  alleged  in  connection  with  the  origin  and  history 
OF  Episcopal  Methodism  in  this  country,  has  ever  been 
CONTESTED  BY  Bbother  Hamill.  Hc  has  attempted  to 
show  that  some  of  our  deductions  were  illogical  and  un- 
charitable. The  FACTS  he  has  not  pretended  to  meet. 
He  has  occupied  the  most  of  his  time  and  space  in  de- 
ploring in  quite  pathetic  terms,  the  "Munster  insurrec- 
tion," "close  communion,"  and  "Baptist  anarchy."  Of 
course,  if  he  thus  permit  "judgment  to  go  by  default;" 
if,  having  of  his  own  free  will  taken  issue  with  us  upon 
a  plain,  practical  question,  he  sees  proper  to  leave  us  to 
discuss  that  question,  and  busies  himself  with  other  is- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  223 

sues  which  liave  no  more  to  do  with  the  one  he  set  out 
to  discuss  than  the  Eastern  war  has  to  do  with  the  state 
of  the  weather,  it  is  not  our  concern.  It  on\j  shows  the 
utter  impossibility  of  harmonizing  Methodist  Episcopacy 
with  the  genius  of  our  free  institutions.  And  now,  if 
the  "Democratic  element"  really  does  exist  in  the  go- 
vernmental economy  of  Methodism,  it  must  exist  in  that  sys- 
tem-nolwithstanding  all  these  facts.  That  is  to  say,  it  must 
exist  in  a  system  of  government,  the  basis  of  whose  re- 
presentation in  its  ecclesiastical  councils  is,  not  the  nu- 
merical strength  of  the  membership,  but  the  travelling 
clergy;  whose  constitution  was  adopted  wholly  by  the 
ministry,  without  so  much  as  submitting  it  to  its  mem- 
bership; whose  rulers,  when  assembled  in  General  Con- 
ference, according  to  the  usage  and  discipline  of  the 
Church,  represent  themselves,  and  "have  no  constitu- 
ents;" which  is  "absolutely  an  aristocracy;"  whose  func- 
tionaries can  remove  all  inferior  oflQcers  without  the 
forms  of  trial,  the  removed  party  having  no  alternative 
but  submission,  there  being  "no  tribunal  to  cure  the  er- 
ror or  rectify  the  wrong;"  whose  bishops,  in  answer  to 
respectful  petitions,  to  make  the  system  Republican,  that 
is,  representative,  use  the  very  language  of  despotism  it- 
self— "Pardon  us  if  wc  know^no  such  rights,  if  we  com- 
prehend no  such  privileges" — whose  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cils are  "unlimited  in  the  authority  to  create,  and 
equally  urdimited  in  the  authority  to  destroy;  responsi- 
ble only  to  their  own  consciences  for  the  manner  in 
which  either  is  exercised;"  whose  legislators  possess 
the  power,  according  to  Mr.  Lord,  to  change  the  whole 
Methodist  denomination  into  a  "  Socinian"  body;  whose 
government,  according  to  the  Discipline,  originated  with 


224  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

one  man,  Mr.  Wesley;  whose  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  powers  are  vested  in  the  same  men,  there 
not  being  "a  modicum  of  power  left  elsewhere;"  who,  in 
direct  contravention  of  that  vital  principle  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  our  government,  "that  all  power  is  inherent 
in  the  people,"  place  all  "ecclesiastical  power"  in  the 
hands  of  the  travelling  clergy;  whose  chief  officers,  the 
bishops,  possess  the  power  of  sending  six  thousand  min- 
isters to  any  and  every  part  of  the  country,  from  Maine 
to  California,  and  from  Florida  to  Oregon,  nolens  volens, 
regardless,  too,  as  to  whether  such  arbitrary  appoint- 
ments shall  comport  with  the  wishes  of  those  who  are 
to  support  them;  and  finally,  whose  funds  and  property 
are  under  the  supreme  control  of  the  same  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  composed  entirely  of  the  clergy;  we  say,  the 
"Democratic  element"  must  exist  in  this  system,  if  it 
has  any  existence  at  all  in  it,  notwithstanding  all  these 
facts!  No,  Brother  Hamill,  the  system  of  Episcopal 
Methodism  may,  like  some  forms  of  government  in  Eu- 
rope, be  "a  system  of  surpassing  energy!"  And  to 
those  who  look  upon  "energy"  as  the  "sine  qua  non^'  of 
government,  it  maybe  "  worthy  of  all  eulogy!"  But, 
whatever  other  virtues  "our  Episcopacy"  may  possess, 
and  we  shall  not  undertake  to  say  but  what  they  are 
many,  we  do  think  that  so  far  as  "  Democracy"  and  "Re- 
publicanism" are  virtues,  "It  is  weighed  in  the  balances 
and  found  wanting."  What  principle  in  the  govern- 
mental economy  of  Methodism  would  have  to  be  com- 
promitted,  to  change  this  government  into  an  aristo- 
cracy, or  even  monarchy?  Suppose  our  legislators. 
State  and  National,  should  take  it  upon  themselves  to 
form  our  civil  government  after  the  model  of  Episcopal 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  225 

Methodism,  is  there  one  man  in  a  million  who  would 
pretend  to  call  it  a  "Democratic  Republican  govern- 
ment?" A  system  of  government  "which  admits  no 
constituents — which  has  no  constituents — which  is  ab- 
solutely an  aristocracy"— such  a  system  a  Democratic 
Republican  government,  forsooth!  Why,  the  virgin 
form  of  the  "goddess  of  American  liberty,"  rising  up  out 
of  that  system,  would  be  the  greatest  monstrosity  that 
ever  haunted  the  distorted  fancy  of  Brother  HamilPs 
opium-eater!  He  who  can  evolve  Democracy  from  such 
a  system  of  polity,  would  find  no  difficulty,  we  opine,  in 
lifting  the  stone  of  Sisyphus"  from  its  depth  profound, 
and  rolling  it  to  the  top  of  the  Dwahalagiri  mountain. 

We  have  accomplished  our  task,  with  what  success  it 
becomes  us  not  to  say.  We  have  not  adduced  a  single 
fact  but  what  has  been  sustained  by  evidence  the  most 
conclusive;  nor  have  we  used  a  single  argument  which 
was  intended  to  have  any  more  weight  with  the  reader 
than  it  had  on  our  own  mind.  Truth — xot  victory,  has 
been  our  aim.  And  as  truth  is  always  consistent  with 
itself;  as  it  can,  above  all  things  else  in  'the  universe, 
afford  to  be  magnanimous,  we  have  freely  and  cheerfully 
opened  our  columns  for  the  full  and  unreserved  discus- 
sion of  the  governmental  economy  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Controversy,  conducted  in  a  right 
spirit,  is  by  far  the  most  successful  method  of  develop- 
ing and  establishing  the  truth,  for  the  obvious  reason — 
that  the  statements  of  the  'parlies  interested  are  each  subjected  to 
the  most  rigid  scrutiny;  and  whatever  survives  such  an 
ordeal,  is  recognized  by  the  historian  as  reliable  mate- 
rial for  his  work.  'Many  of  the  important  facts  which 
are  connected  with  the  origin  and  history  of  Episcopal 


226  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Methodism  in  this  country,  never  would  be  brought  out 
before  the  public  mind  but  for  discussions  of  this  kind. 
We  disclaim  all  sympathy  with  that  sickly  cant  among 
many  professing  Christians,  which  affirms  that  religious 
Controversy  is  essentially  and  always  an  evil.  And  as 
we  do  not  believe  that  Methodist  Episcopacy  has  any 
higher  claims  upon  implicit  popular  credulity  than  any 
other  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity  of  equal  pretensions 
and  age,  we  have  not  thought  it  sacrilege  to  discuss  its 
claims  to  the  confidence  and  support  of  American  citizens. 
This  we  have  done  to  the  best  of  our  ability.  Sincei'ely 
wishing  that  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  may 
be  subserved  by  this  discussion,  we  here  lay  down  our 
pen. 


Letter  to  Messrs.  David  Clopton,  John  B.  Bilbro,  and 

Egbert  L.  Mayes. 
JRespeded  Brethren: 

As  your  jnames  appeared  on  the  original  communica- 
tion from  your  honored  pastor,  which  sprung  this  dis- 
cussion, you  will  excuse  me  for  the  liberty  I  take  in 
addressing  you  a  few  words  on  its  conclusion.  On  read- 
ing that  communication,  I  could  not  regard  it  in  any 
other  light  than  as  a  formal  demand  that  I  should  either 
repudiate  the  article  from  the  Western  Watchman,  or  de- 
fend it.  It  is  due  to  myself  to  state,  that  the  article  was 
selected  and  published  in  the  paper  by  my  late  worthy 
associate,  several  days  before  I  saw  it.  Indeed,  up  to 
the  time  of  the  receipt  of  your  communication,  I  had 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  22 1 

not  read  it,  beiug  absent  from  borne  in  attendance  upon 
tbe  Georgia  Baptist  Convention.  Immediately,  tbere- 
fore,  after  reading  tbe  article,  I  did  repudiate  tbat  por- 
tion of  it  wbicb  I  deemed  justly  offensive  to  your  deno- 
mination. But  as  I  could  noi  extend  tbis  reprebension 
to  tbat  portion  of  it  wbicb  referred  to  the  governmental 
economy  of  your  Churcb,  as  an  isolated  topic  of  discus- 
sion, I  cbose  tbe  latter  alternative — I  cbose  to  defend 
it.  I  am  sure,  you,  bretbren,  will  not  blame  me  for  using 
sucb  facta  in  tbis  controversy  as  your  own  bistory  bas 
furnisbed  to  my  band.  True,  I  bavc  been  abused,  mis- 
represented, and  slandered  by  some  members  of  your 
Cburcb,  in  tbe  public  prints  and  otberwise,  for  daring 
to  discuss  tbis  subject.  But  I  beg  to  assure  you,  tbat 
I  do  not  bold  you,  nor  tbe  large,  intelligent,  and  pious 
denomination  of  Christians  to  which  you  belong,  respon- 
sible for  this  unkind  treatment.  Indeed,  your  worthy  ' 
pastor  bas  expi-essed  time  and  again,  bis  decided  dis- 
approbation of  sucb  conduct.  And  it  affords  me  pleasure 
thus  publicly  to  bear  testimony  to  the  excellent  spirit 
which  has  marked  bis  course  through  this  discussion. 
I  shall  ever  cherish  for  him  tbe  kindest  and  best  of 
Christian  feelings.  I  trust  I  have  not  been  wanting  in 
reciprocal  courtesy. 

It  would  be  indelicate  in  me  to  appeal  to  you  to  de- 
cide bow  far  I  have  succeeded  in  maintaining  the  pro- 
position upon  which' your  pastor  took  issue  with  me. 
Tbe  result  is  before  a  much  more  unerring  and  august 
tribunal  ttian  either  party  immediately-  interested  in  the 
discussion — an  enligbtonod  and  generous  public  opinion. 
With  tbe  award  of  that  tribunal,  it  would  be  madness  in 
me  not  to  acquiesce. 


228  A   DISCUSSION  ON 

Permit  me  to  saj',  in  conclusion,  that  I  was  unwilling 
to  take  the  position  I  did  in  the  openiDg  of  this  contro- 
versy, without  sustaining  it  by  what  I  believed  to  be 
ample  testimony  drawn  from  the  most  authentic  sources. 
This  I  could  not  do  within  a  shorter  compass  than  I 
have  occupied.  As  I  assumed  the  onus  prohandi,  I  was 
unwilling  to  stop  short  of  that  measure  and  kind  of  tes- 
timony which  I  believed  would  sustain  my  allegation; 
and  having  reached  that  point,  the  discussion,  so  far  as 
I  am  concerned,  is  closed.  Wishing  you  grace,  mercy, 
and  peace,  I  am,  brethren,  without  any  abatement. 
Your  friend  and  brother  in  Christ, 

SAM'L.  HENDERSON. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  229 


LETTER  YI. 

THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  ;  A  VALUA- 
BLE AUXILL\EY  OF  THE  GOSPEL  ;  AND  A 
HOLY  CHARITY;  HON.  RUFUS  CHOATE'S 
VIEW  OF  METHODISM  ;  THE  CONTRAST 
REVIEWED. 

Mr.  Lord's  history  of  the  Book  Concern;  Built  up  by  the  preachers, 
and  therefore,  held  in  trust  by  them  for  two  holy  uses;  Its  cha- 
rity like  Job;  Its  control  by  the  ministry  praiseworthy;  The  mu- 
tilated resolution;  The  Court  decrees  that  the  General  Conference 
has  no  proprietary  interest  in  the  Preaching  Houses;  Lay  man- 
agement of  the  largest  revenue  of  the  Church. 

PRINX'IPLES   OF  THE   CnUKCH   PROPERTY   CASE. 

Do  civil  lawyers  understand  Church  polity  better  than  judicious 
ministers?  Legal  opinions  versus  Church  standard;  Louisville 
Conventions;  Dr.  Elliott  and  Hon.  Rufus  Clioate  against  a  legal 
Fiction;  The  Church,  South,  did  not  recover  its  rights  upon  false 
principles;  The  case  stated;  Principles  applicable  to  the  Book 
Concern  property,  and  inapplicable  to  Church  polity;  Pleadings 
ofecounsel;  Consent  of  a  majority  in  all  departments  of  the  Church 
to  a  division  of  the  Book  Concern  Fund;  Plan  of  separation  con- 
tingent; Power  ascribed  to  General  Conference  wholly  unfound- 
ed; The  veto  power  of  an  Annual  Conference;  Protest  of  laity 
In  the  case  of  a  distinguished  minister  of  the  Georgia  Conference; 
La^vye^s'  opinion  of  a  Church  in  the  Methodist  sense;  Notion  that 
20 


230  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  General  Conference  could  become  Socinian,  or  Baptist;  Min- 
isters of  every  Church  can  Lecome  Mohammedans;  Another  could 
and  would;  Methodist  doctrines  not  established  by  vote;  The 
glory  of  Christ  cannot  be  voted  away;  Mr.  Benson's  testimony; 
Louisville  Convention;  Opinion  of  the  niost  distinguished  lawyer 
in  the  United  States,  the  Hon.  Rufus  Choate;  Methodism  proceeds 
on  the  plan  of  our  grand  secular  union;  The  true  sovereign;  The 
preachers  in  a  mass,  acting  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  the  people; 
The  Confecence  which  organized  Methodism  was,  in  a  remarkable 
degree,  analogous  to  the  Convention  which  created  the  Federal 
Constitution,  in  1787;  Annual  and  General  Conferences  subord- 
inate agencies  of  the  Church;  Mr.  Wesley  testifies  that  some  thous- 
ands in  the  United  States  desired  his  advice;  Eighty-three  preach- 
ers cannot  be  magnified  into  some  thousands;  Mr.  Choate's  only 
error;  The  case  proves  the  all-controlling  power  of  the  laity. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Why  Muncer's  proclamation  is  quoted;  Baptists  not  ranked  with 
Campbellites;  Concurrence  with  Baptist  luminaries;  An  answer; 
Another  serious  error;  Constituents  of  the  Quarterly  Conference; 
The  preacher  has  no  vote  in  the  trial  of  a  member;  Logic  of  the 
exposure  of  Baptist  disorders. 

TUE    CONTRAST. 

The  contrast  twice  dead;  The  Church  legislates  in  minor  matters 
only;  Distinction  between  the  province  of  human  and  divine 
legislation;  How  the  discipline  was  formed;  Conference  laws  like 
Acts  of  Legislatures;  Discipline  not  amended;  Duality  of  Gen- 
eral Conference  jurisdictions  demanded  by  the  people;  Bishop's 
term  of  office  like  that  of  the  supreme  judges:  Subject  to  a  like 
impeachment;  General  Conference  constituted  like  the  I^ited 
States  Senate;  Is  one  State  nearly  equal  to  thirteen  in  the  ^uth- 
ern  Baptist  Convention?  Bishop's  power  of  removal  less  than  the 
President's;  Officers  of  Methodism  chosen  as  directly  from  the 
people  as  civil  officers;  The  right  of  petition  as  unbounded  as  in 
Congress;  An  absurdity  exposed;  Mr.  Wesley's  advice;  Bishops 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  231 

have  no  legislative  powers;  Restrictions  upon  Annual  and  Gen- 
eral Conferences;  What  would  dethrone  Christ  as  King  in  Zion; 
The  only  right  of  the  clergy  in  Church  buildings;  The  contrast 
and  the  analogy,  both  exist  in  their  proper  places;  A  pleasant 
close;  The  discussion  useful;  The  pious  will  do  good  anj^where; 
Charity  indispensable;  The  publication  of  the  discussion,  without 
note  or  comment,  proposed. 


"Tt  shall  even  be  as  when  a  hnngry  man  dreamefh,  and  behold  heeateth,  bnt  he 
awaketh  and  his  soul  is  empty:  or  as  when  a  thirsty  man  dreametli.and  behold  he  drink- 
eth.  bat  he  awaketh  and  behold,  he  is  faint.  So  shall  the  multitude  be  who  fight 
against  Mount  Zion."— Isaiah. 


Brother  Hendersox: 

Attention  to  the  higher  duties  of  the  ministry,  in  con- 
nection with  a  revival  in  my  own  charge,  and  camp 
meeting  labor  abroad,  with  the  conviction  that  my  posi- 
tion has  been  full}'-  established  in  -this  controversy: 
namely,  that  Methodism  is  Republicanism  of  the  high- 
est excellence,  has  delayed  my  answer  to  your  article 
on  the  Book  Concern  Property  Case,  and  the  principles 
involved  in  its  adjudication,  so  far  as  they  bear  upon 
the  question  under  discussion. 

An  analysis  of  these  princii^les,  will  give  increased 
support  to  my  position.  A  brief  history  of  this  case,  ia 
necessary  to  a  correct  understanding  of  them.  It  is 
furnished  to  my  hand  by  Mr,  Lord.  lie  says:  "When 
Methodism  was  organized  as  a  separate  Church,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  means  of  instruction  afforded  by  pccaching, 
it  was  very  obvious  that  a  great  want  was  to  be  sup- 
plied in  the  furnishing  of  religious  literature  to  its  peo- 
ple; and  one  of  their  preachers  organized  a  system  of 
publishing  l>ooks  in  this  country.  It  was  originally  es- 
tablished in  Philadelphia.     This  preacher,  whose  name 


232  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

was  Cooper,  lent  a  small  sum  of  money  to  the  object, 
and  invested  it  in  books.  They  were  sold  among  the 
denomination;  and  out  of  the  profits  a  small  capital 
was  gradually  formed,  which  was  employed  in  publish- 
ing books.  This  came  to  be  a  matter  of  some  magnitude, 
and  in  1836,  it  had  been  removed  to  New  York,  and 
become  an  extensive  establishment.  It  was  then  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  and  afterward  reinvigorated,  and  from 
that  time  to  the  present,  it  has  gone  on  with  great 
prosperity,  so  that  it  has  accumulated  a  capital  of  about 
$t50,000.  It  was  early  provided  that  the  preachers 
should  see  that  their  congregations  were  supplied  with 
books. 

"They  were  very  faithful  men;  stimulated  not  by  a 
love  of  gain,  but  by  the  higher  purpose  of  religious  de- 
votion. Of  course,  a  fund  thus  constructed,  could  not 
but  become  considerable.  Your  honors  will  have  your 
attention  called  to  the  fact,  that  it  was  really  the  result 
of  the  devotion  and  services  of  the  preachers.  It  was 
not  like  many  charitable  funds,  a  fund  growing  out  af 
the  donations  of  wealthy  men,  but  it  was  in  its  main 
features  the  earnings  of  this  system.  Its  profits,  after 
providing  capital  enough  to  carry  on  its  business  suc- 
cessfully, were  devoted  at  an  early  period  to  one  single 
purpose,  in  two  or  three  branches.  That  purpose  was, 
the  making  up  of  the  deficiences  of  travelling  preachers 
and  providing  for  the  supernumerary,  superannuated 
preachers,  the  wives  and  children  of  preachers,  and  the 
widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  preachers. — (Church 
Property  Case,  p.  1  and  2.)  It  was  a  'charity  which 
grew  out  of  actual  laborious,  self-denying,  beneficial 
services,  just  as  much  as  any  savings'  bank  or  life  in- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  233 

surance. — (p.  152.)  Every  preacher  was  an  agent  in  the 
diffusion  of  the  literature  of  the  Church;  a  wise — very- 
wise  plan — wise  for  the  people,  and  wise  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church.  But  it  was  the  act  of  the  preach- 
ers; it  was  the  labor  of  the.  preachers  that  made  this 
the  great  Book  Concern  which  it  ever  came  to  be.  This 
was  a  "business  most  strictly  and  directly  connected 
with  the  ministry  of  this  Church,  calling  not  only  for  ac- 
tivity and  labor  on  their  part,  but  pecuniary  accounta- 
bility on  the  part  of  every  preacher,  in  every  Methodist 
circuit. — (p.  154  )  It  was  intended  to  create  a  fund  for 
the  first  great  object  of  enlightening  this  Methodist  com- 
mxinity  as  to  religious  truth;  and  that  the  second  great 
object  was,  that  when  this  institution  should  be  carried 
out,  the  preachers  themselves  might  have  some  little 
stimulus  for  activity,  and  that  they  should  be  entitled 
to  look  for  an  absolute  support  from  this  fund  for  the 
wants  of  old  age,  and  the  wants  of  their  dependents,  and 
the  wants  of  their  poor  and  sufifering  brethren.  I 'ask, 
if  there  ever  was  a  fund  which  provided  so  equitably 
and  justly,  a  retiring  pension  for  those  men,  who  for  a 
trifling  salary,  not  enough  to  pay  for  a  fashionable  din- 
ner, served  year  after  year  in  the  wilderness,  and  spent 
their  best  days  in  toil. — (p.  155.)  It  was  a  retiring 
pension,  or  savings'  bank  for  the  supernumerar}'  and 
worn  out  preachers,  and  their  widows  and  orphans." — 
(p.  157.) 

The  foregoing  extracts  from  Mr.  Lord's  speech,  show 
us  both  the  ground  and  the  kind  of  right  to  property  in 
the  Book  Concern,  held  by  the  travelling  preachers  of 
the  Methodist  Church.  First:  Tliat  the  right  to  it  gr(>w 
out  of  the  fact,  tliat  it  was  mainly  tlic  product  of  llieir 


234  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

own  earniiigs,  from  a  small  capital  created  by  them- 
selves, and  by  themselves  managed  under  all  the  pecu- 
niary liabilities  to  which  business  of  every  sort  is  sub- 
ject. And  secondly:  That  this  Book  Concern  property 
was  held  by  them  in  trust  for  two  distinct  and  specified 
purposes,  and  cannot  be  alienated  by  them  for  any  other 
uses  whatever;  no,  not  even  for  any  other  religious  en- 
terprizes.  These  objects  are,  first,  the  diffusion  of  reli- 
gious knowledge,  and  then  the  relief  of  indigent  and 
distressed  preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of 
deceased  preachers.  The  first-named  of  these  objects, 
all  must  pronounce  a  laudable  Christian  enterprize,  emi- 
nently worthy  of  a  band  of  gospel  ministers,  and  the  se- 
cond, a  holy  charity,  which,  like  Job,  "Becomes  eyes  to 
the  blind,  and  feet  to  the  lame,  and  a  father  to  the  poor, 
and  brings  the  blessing  of  him  who  was  ready  to  perish 
upon  tliose  who  manage  it;  and  causeth  the  widow's 
heart  to  sing  for  joy."  Of  this  latter  object  of  the  Book 
Concern,  Mr.  Lord  says:  "Now,  until  we  get  to  the  be- 
neficiaries, we  find  no  person  having  anything  but  a 
mere  administrative  right — a  mere  agency,  and,  as  to 
selection,  no  discretion."— (p.  149.)  Mr.  Wood  says, 
(p.  319)  "The  Methodist  Church  are  not  the  benefici- 
aries, they  are  the  managers  of  this  charity,  for  the  sake 
of  others — they  have  no  right  to  apply  it  to  any  other 
interest  in  the  Church,  or  at  least  so  much  of  it  as  may 
be  required  to  fulfill  the  end  designed,  to  supply  the 
beneficiaries."  Said  I  not  true,  then,  that  property  thus 
created,  and  held  for  such  holy  uses,  is  a  valuable  auxi- 
liary of  the  gospel,  and  a  holy  charity?  Can  any  ration- 
al man  pronounce  such  an  institution,  contemplating 
such  holy  ends,  anti-Republican?!!     Does  the  fact  that 


METBODIST  EPISCOPACY.  235 

the  capital  was  created  by  preacliers,  that  its  increase 
was  the  profit  of  their  labors,  and  that  this  holy  charity 
is  administered  by  preachers  to  their  sufifering-  breth- 
ren, their  widows  and  orphans,  constitute  it  anti-Repub- 
lican? Xo,  brother  Henderson,  it  is  not  only  not  anti- 
Eepublican,  but  it  merits  more  praise  than  to  coldly 
affirm  it  is  in  harmony  with  Eepublicanism.  The  law- 
yers who  called  it  a  wise  institution,  might  have  added, 
it  was  one  of  the  holiest'  and  most  benevolent  'institu- 
tions in  the  land.  Suppose  yourself  and  a  score  of  Bap- 
tist preachers  began  a  noble  enterprise  of  this  kind,  fur- 
nished a  small  capital  for  the  purpose,  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibilities, and  devoted  the  profits  of  your  labors  to 
such  blessed  uses ;  what  would  you,  what  could  you 
think  of  the  soundness  of  judgment  of  that  man,  who 
should  denounce  this  wise  design  as  anti-Republican? 
Would  you  not  say,  "Friend,  you  are  mistaken;  some 
strange  prejudice  has  blinded  your  mind,  or  you  would 
commend  and  not  censure  our  noble  object;  if  we  as 
ministers,  choose  to  devote  a  portion  of  our  means  and 
of  our  labor  to  the  work  of  offering  you  a  holy  literature, 
and  give  a  portion  of  our  earnings  to  relieve  the  dis- 
abled veterans  of  the  cross,  who  have  ministered  unto  us 
in  holy  things,  whose  right  have  we  infringed,  that  you 
should  consider  us  as  enemies  of  our  land?  We  have 
wronged  no  man;  we  have  defrauded  no  man.  If  3'ou, 
as  laymen,  arc  emulous  of  imitating  our  holy  example, 
what  hindereth  you?  Go,  write,  publish,  and  circulate 
a  holy  literature,  and  expend  your  profits  upon  what- 
ever noble  objects  of  charity  you  see  proper,  and  'wc 
do  rejoice  therein,  yea,  and  will  rejoice.'  ^  Who 
would  deny  the  justice  of  this  rebuke?     None;  not  one. 


236  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Such,  then,  is  my  reply  to  any  who  gainsay  the  fact, 
that  the  Book  Concern,  no  matter  whether  the  ministry 
or  the  laity  administer  its  holy  uses,  is  a  valuable  auxi- 
liary of  the  gospel,  and  a  holy  charity. 

In  the  above  explanation  of  the  character  of  the  Book 
Concern  property,  I  have  frankly  admitted  that  it  is 
held,  not  by  the  bishops,  but  by  the  entire  body  of  itiner- 
ants, for  specified  uses;  and  that  no  other  department 
of  our  Church  has  the  smallest  control  over  it.  I  do  not 
only  defend  this  right  of  the  preachers  to  manage  this 
charity  of  their  own  creation,  although  none  but  the  in- 
digent beneficiaries  are  enriched  by  it  one  farthing,  but 
I  warmly  eulogize  the  scheme,  and  with  a  free  heart. 
Nevertheless,  with  equal  frankness  and  boldness,  I  un- 
equivocally deny  that  our  bishops  or  our  Conferences 
lia-ve  any  similar  property  in  our  Churches,  &c.;  or  that 
they  have  even  the  shadow  of  a  shade  of  any  kind  of 
property  in  our  Churches,  or  any  other  right  beyond  the 
privilege  of  appointing  preachers  to  them  from  our  An- 
nual Conferences. 

I  challenged  you  in  a  former  letter,  to  publish  the 
deed  of  any  Methodist  Church  in  the  land;  the  record 
was  at  hand;  you  could  have  seen  it  at  any  moment. 
You  did  not  choose  to  do  it,  but  quoted  in  part,  and  re- 
member, only  in  part,  a  resolution  passed  at  the  General 
Confei'ence,  in  view  of  a  probable  division  of  the  Church. 
The  part  of  the  resolution  which  you  omitted,  gave  a 
sense  entirely  difiercnt  from  what  seems  to  be  the  mean- 
ing of  your  mutilated  extract.  The  resolution  is  as  fol- 
lows: "That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  colleges,  &c., 
within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  shall  be 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  23 1 

forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up  on  the  part  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  50  far  as  this  resolution  can  be 
of  force  in  the  premises."'  Does  this  resolution  justify  your 
declaration,  that  the  bishops  and  clergy  assumed  an  ab- 
solute proprietorship  in,  and  a  right  to  dispose  of,  all  the 
churches,  schools,  colleges,  &c.,  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
capal  Church  in  the  United  ^States?  Look  at  it  again, 
and  particularly  look  at  the  emphatic  clause,  which  you 
neglected  to  quote,  which  omission  changes  entirely 
the  sense  of  the  resolution,  namely:  "  so  far  as  this  reso- 
lution can  be  of  force  in  the  premises.  How  far  could  it 
have  been  of  force  in  the  premises?  Why,  just  so  far 
as  to  release  the  Southern  Churches  from  the  claim  the 
Church,  North,  could  have  set  up.  What  claim  did  the 
Church,  North,  think  they  could  possibly  have  set  up 
over  the  property  in  Southern  Churches?  Simply  this, 
and  thie-  alone,  and  not  the  shadow  of  a  claim  beyond 
this:  that  if  the  Southern  Methodist  Church  had  been 
declared  a  secession  by  the  Court,  and  the  Church,  North, 
had  been  so  minded,  they  could,  had  not  this  resolution 
interdicted  it,  have  appointed  preachers  to  these 
Churches.  This  is  the  sole  point  referred  to  in  this  re- 
solution. The  onl}'^  right  ever  claimed  by  our  bishops 
or  Conferences,  in  our  church  buildings,  is  the  right'  of 
sending  Methodist  preachers — created  such  by  the  laity, 
and  by  them  recommended  for  the  itinerancy — to  preach 
the  gospel  in  these  buildings.  Tlic  lawyers  say  (p.  208) 
"  That  body  (General  Conference)  had,  however,  no  pro- 
prietory interest  in  the  preaching  houses,  and  could  only  trans- 
fer its  jurisdiction  over  t/iem,  which  is  done  by  the  resolutions, 
and  the  proceedings  under  them."  But  our  Disciplines  are 
scattered  broadcast  over  the  land;  look  into  them  and 


238  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

see  the  form  of  our  Church  deeds,  and  let  prejudice  no 
more  utter  so  groundless  a  charge. 

I  again  repeat,  that  in  all  things  in  which  the  laity 
are  equally  concerned  with  the  ministry,  Methodism  has 
lay  delegation,  and  lay  management,  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent ;  in,  for  instance.  Missionary,  Tract,  Education, 
Sunday  School,  and  other  Societies,  and  in  Conference 
Financial  Boards.  And  that  these  are  by  no  means  in- 
ferior interests  of  the  Church,  you  will  admit,  when  I 
repeat  that  the  Missionary  Society,  which  has  more  lay 
than  clerical  managers,  disburses  annually  by  far  the 
largest  revenue  of  our  Church,  about  $160,000.  As  for 
our  College  operations,  you  have  an  example  of  them 
here  in  Tuskegee,  immediately  under  your  eye.  Who, 
I  ask,  are  the  trustees  of  our  Tuskegee  Female  College? 
Are  they  preachers?  Who  are  now  organizing  the  fac- 
ulty? Are  they  preachers?  No,  you  know  them,  and 
have  every  opportunity  to  see  to  what  extent  laymen 
control  these  interests.  But  you  inquire,  are  not  the 
laity  equally  interested  with  the  preachers  in  the  Book 
Concern?  I  answer,  by  no  means;  the  preachers,  not 
the  laity,  furnished  mainly  the  capital,  made  tlie  earn- 
ings by  their  labor,  and  disburse  the  profits,  not  to  in- 
digent laymen,  but  to  distressed  preachers.  -Who,  then, 
should  control  it?  Plainly,  those  who  alone  would  suffer 
from  its  mismanagement. — Principles  of  Chur.ch  Pro- 
perty Case. 

The  foregoing  expose  of  the  character  of  the  property 
held  by  the  Methodist  Church,  will  prepare  us  for  an 
easy  understanding  of  the  principles  involved  in  the 
Church  Property  Case,  in  which  the  right  of  the  South- 
ern Church  to  a  due  proportion  of  the  Book  Concern 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  239 

fund,  was  contested  by  the  Church,  North,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  abolition  sentiment.  I  hero  premise  that  the 
opinions  of  legal  gentlemen,  such  as  the  learned  coun- 
sel engaged  in  the  Church  suit,  upon  questions  such  as 
the  following:  What  are  the  riglits  of  property  which 
the  courts  of  our  country  will  recognize?  are  worthy  of 
the  highest  respect.  But  upon  questions  of  Church  pol- 
ity, whether  in  the  Methodist,  Baptist,  or  Presbyterian 
Churches,  those  who  are  not  connected  with  these 
Churches,  however  great  their  legal  attainments,  can- 
not possibly  understand  them  as  thoroughly,  as  judi- 
cious ministers  of  these  Churches,  who  arc  familiar  with 
the  every  day  operations  of  their  respective  Church 
systems. 

I  have  all  along  in  this  discussion  supported  mj  i)osi- 
tion  from  acknowledged  Ciiurch  standards,  and  not  from 
the.  mere  opinions  of  those  unconnected  with  either  of 
our  Churches.  You  had  the  standards  of  our  Church 
before  you,  in  the  very  book  whence  you  extracted  these 
legal  opinions.  When  you  sought  to  condemn  us,  you 
should  have  attempted  it  from  those  standards.  Your 
failure  to  do  this,  and  your  resort  to  the  mere  opinions 
of  only  a  portion  of  the  counsel  engaged  in  the  case — 
opinions  which  had  been,  in  advance,  solemnly  protested 
against  by  no  less  an  authority  than  the  Louisville 
Convention  of  the  Cliurch,  South,  which  protest  was  ac- 
tually in  evidence  before  the  Court — and  opinions,  too, 
whicli  were  exactly  opposite  to  the  opinions  of  the  most 
distinguished  lawyer  employed  in  the  case,  and,  indeed, 
tlic  most  distinguished  lawyer  in  the  United  States,  the 
lion.  Rufus  Choate,  of  Boston  —  and  o])inions,  which 
have  also  drawn  forth  from  Dr.  Elliot,  and  others,  of  the 


240  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Church,  North,  bitter  condemnation;  though  you  seem 
to  have  strangely  mistaken  us,  in  supposing  that  either 
the  Northern  or  Southern  Churches  silently  assented  to 
these  opinions — this  resort,  I  say,  to  proof  of  this  de- 
scription, is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  V5^eakness  of 
your  cause,  and  of  the  groundlessness  of  your  allega- 
tions. 

It  may  be  asked  then,  did  the  Church,  South,  recover 
its  property  upon  false  principles?  I  answer,  no.  There 
were  principles  set  forth  in  the  debate,  which  were  false 
in  their  application  to  all  other  matters  of  Church  polity, 
but  true  in  their  application  to  the  Book  Concern  Fund. 
With  reference  to  this  fund,  the  entire  travelling  minis- 
try of  the  United  States  had  no  constituency — they 
were  the  only  body  in  the  Church,  who  had  any  voice 
at  all  in  the  disposing  of  this  fund — they  were  the  only 
department  of  the  Church  which  had  any  control  Over 
it,  and  simply  because  it  was  of  their  own  creation: 
they  were  the  Church,  in  the  governmental  sense  of  the 
term,  so  far  as  this  fund  was  concerned,  but  no  farther. 
The  application  of  these  principles  to  other  matters  of 
Church  polity,  was  a  false  statement  of  our  Church 
government,  but  their  application  to  this  fund  was  just, 
and,  therefore,  the  Court  righteously  adjudged  us  our 
rights  in  the  case. 

The  case  stood  thus:  The  Book  Concern  property  was 
held  by  the  entire  body  of  travelling  ministry,  for  speci- 
fied uses.  Secondly:  The  Annual  Conferences  delegated 
to  the  General  Conference  their  entire  control  over  this 
fund,  placing  upon  them  but  a  single  restriction,  which 
restriction  was,  that  they  should  carry  out  the  design 
of  the  founders  of  this  charity:  namely,  that  they  should 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  241 

not  appropriate  the  produce  of  this  fund  to  any  other 
purpose  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  beneficiaries  therein 
described;  and  so  the  General  Conference  became  the 
manager  of  this  fund,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  dis- 
bursed the  proceeds  to  the  beneficiaries  thereof.  Thirdly: 
The  General  Conference,  thus  clothed  with  full  powers, 
could  have  divided,  without  any  separation  of  the 
Church,  this  fund  into  two  or  twenty  parts,  provided 
that  the  intention  of  this  restrictive  article  was  secured, 
that  the  proceeds  wci-e  disbursed  to  the  proper  benefi- 
ciaries. Fourthly:  The  division  of  this  fund  with  the 
Church,  South,  secured  the  proceeds  of  it  to  the  very 
same  beneficiaries,  and  no  others,  intended  in  the  re- 
strictive article;  and,  therefore,  the  General  Conference 
bad  the  power  to  make  this  division;  and  in  view  of 
the  necessity  for  separate  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions, 
growing  out  of  the"  diverse  views  of  the  two  sections  of 
the  Church  upon  tlie  slavery  question,  wisdom  dictated 
the  propriety  of  this  division  of  the  fund.  And,  lastly: 
The  majority  of  Annual  Conferences  of  the  United 
States — the  only  primary  bodies  having  any  claim  over 
this  fund — approved  of  this  division;  and  though  the 
two-thirds  majority  required  to  change  the  restrictive 
article,  was  not  obtained;  yet  in  consideration  of  the 
fact  that  the  design  of  this  article  was  as  efiectually 
secured  after  the  division  of  the  funds  with  the  Church, 
South,  as  before,  it  was  decided,  to  be  no  bar  to  this 
division  of  the  property.  Therefore,  the  Ivill  of  the  major- 
ity of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  the  will  of  the 
majority  of  Annual  Conferences  which  approved  of  the 
measure  thereafter,  should  be  executed. 
21 


242  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

The  plea  set  up  in  bar  of  this  measure  was,  that  the 
beneficiaries  to  whom  the  Southern  Conferences  would 
distribute  these  proceeds,  did  not  answer  the  descrip- 
tion of  such  in  the  discipline — they  were  not  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — they  and  their  Con- 
ferences were  a  secession  from  the  Methodist  Church. 
It  was  replied  that,  in  the  Church,  South,  "  there  was 
no  deviation  in  morals  or  doctrines,  in  rites,  ceremonies, 
or  usages — that  there  is  no  sort  of  pretence  of  any  de- 
viation in  doctrine,  nor  anything  in  morals,  in  practice, 
or  in  Methodist  usages,  or  that  we  are  heterodox  in  the 
shade  of  a  hair."  In  everything  we  are  alike;  and, 
therefore,  if  the  fund  were  divided  with  the  Southern 
Church,  it  would  not  promote  doctrines  contrary  to 
those  cherished  by  the  creators  of  this  charity.  AVe 
have  done  nothing  for  which  we  should  be  stigmatized 
as  a  secession;  we  have  only  asked  for  a  duality  of 
jurisdictions,  instead  of  an  unity  of  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Conference;  and  we  had  weighty  reasons  for 
making  this  demand. 

The  preachers  representing  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  the  people  in  the  Northern  section  of  the  Church, 
declared  it  was  the  sentiment  of  the  Northern  people, 
that  it  would  operate  greatly  to  the  prejudice  of  Me- 
thodism in  that  section,  if  a  bishop  connected  with 
slavery  were  permitted  to  exercise  Episcopal  functions 
among  them — and  accordingly  suspended  a  blameless 
bishop.  Thereupon,  the  Southern  preachers  represent- 
ing the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  people  in  the  South- 
ern section  of  the  work,  knowing  the  strong  indignation 
which  would  inevitably  be  excited  by  an  attempt  to  de- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  243 

grade  a  holy  man  from  the  office  of  bishop,  on  account 
of  his  connection  with  slavery,  asked  that  provision 
should  be  made  for  a  separation,  contingent  upon  the 
demand  of  the  people  of  their  section  for  such  division. 
The  preachers  representing  the  Church,  North,  wisely 
conceded  that  contingent  demand,  and  took  all  the  pre- 
liminary steps  necessary  to  consummate  the  separation; 
provided  that  the  facts  which  were  to  be  developed, 
proved  that  the  Southern  preachers  had  rightly  inter- 
preted public  sentiment.  They  separated — the  South- 
ern preachers  returned  to  their  homes.  Primary  assem- 
blies were  called — as  Mr.  Fancher,  counsel  for  the  North, 
said:  "The  most  excited  meetings  soon  occurred  in  all 
parts  of  the  South,  and  the  most  indignant  resolutions 
were  passed."  With  one  consent,  they  demanded  an  im- 
mediate separation  from  the  Church,  North.  The  con- 
tingency provided  for  by  the  General  Conference  was 
become  a  certainty.  And  to  complete  all  the  steps  ne- 
cessary to  perfectly  exonerate  us  from  the  charge  of  se- 
cession, the  entire  body  of  Annual  Conferences  took  ac- 
tion directly  upon  the  moneyed  interests  involved  in  the 
division,  and  thus  indirectly  upoR  the  question  of  the 
division  itself;  and  a  majority  of  them  voted  that  the 
Church,  South,  should  have  her  just  proportion  of  the 
funds  of  the  Church. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  General  Conference  consent- 
ing to  the  division,  if  the  sentiment  of  the  people  de- 
manded it — the  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  of 
the  United  States  also  consenting  to  it— the  laity  of  the 
entire  South  demanding  it — and  the  laity  of  the  Ciiurch, 
North,  the  only  remaining  party  in  the  case,  being  sa- 
tisfied that  their  abolition  sentiments  had  accomplished 


2U  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  separation 
not  affecting  their  Church  relations  at  all,  did  not,  in 
their  primary  assemblies,  raise  any  voice  against  this 
division,  which  they  could  have  done  had  they  seen  pro- 
per; and  therefore  it  is  only  justice  to  say,  that  they 
also  tacitly  consented  to  this  division.  Thus  we  see  the 
majority,  in  all  the  departments  of  the  Church,  consent- 
ing to  a  duality  of  jurisdictions;  and  though  there  was 
not  two-thirds  majority  of  Conferences,  wrongly  suppos- 
ed necessary  to  a  division  of  the  funds  of  the  Church, 
yet  there  was  a  majority  in  favor  of  separate  jurisdic- 
tions, and  being  one  in  all  things  else,  we  are  not,  there- 
fore, a  schism  or  secession,  and  so  were  righteously  ad- 
judged by  the  Court. 

That  these  were  the  true  principles  upon  which  the 
rights  of  the  South  rested,  aud  upon  which  the  Court  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  South,  though  not  presented  in  this 
form,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  in  all  the  pleadings 
of  the  counsel,  there  is  a  constant  reference,  not  only  to 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  but  also  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  in  favor 
of  the  plan  of  separa^on,  and  to  the  almost  universal 
demand  of  the  laity  of  the  Southern  Church  for  that  se- 
paration. Some,  however,  of  the  counsel,  and  only  some 
of  them,  in  their  zeal  to  repel  the  charge  of  schism  from 
the  Church,  South,  thought  proper,  contrary  to  the  opinion 
of  other  counsel  to  take  the  position,  that  the  General 
Conference  had  almost  enough  power  to  divide  the 
Church  independently  of  the  action  of  other  departments 
of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  fearful  of  the  weakness  of 
this  position,  they  took  good  care  to  show  that  the  en- 
tire laity  of  the  South  demanded  the  separation,  and  that 
a  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  sanctioned  it. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  245 

Now,  the  idea  that  the  provision  of  the  General  Con- 
ference for  a  division  of  the  Church,  would  have  been 
binding  upon  the  Annual  Conferences  and  the  laitj',  if 
public  sentiment  among  them  had  not  demanded  it,  is 
plainly  absurd;  for,  upon  the  yery  face  of  the  articles 
of  separation,  as  well  as  in  the  debates  of  that  Confer- 
ence, and  in  the  protest  of  the  South,  the  fact  stands  out 
prominently  to  view,  that  the  plan  of  separation  was  to 
be  executed  only  upon  a  given  contingency;  that  is,  the 
laity  and  ministry  of  the  Southern  Church  should  de- 
mand it.  If  this  contingency  did  not  become  a  fact,  the 
plan  of  separation  was  to  be  void  and  of  no  effect. 
Moreover,  the  action  thought  necessary  to  consummate 
the  division,  was  to  be  laid  before  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences for  their  assent;  and,  as  Mr.  Fancher  says:  "  The 
Southern  preac/ters  were  to  feel  the  pulse  of  public  sentiment," 
and  act  accordingly.  Therefore,  the  assumption  that  the 
General  Conference  claimed  and  possessed  the  power  to 
divide  the  Church,  independently  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences and  of  the  laity,  was  wholly  gratuitous,  and  con- 
trary to  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  unnecessary  for  the 
support  of  the  just  claims  of  the  Soutli. 

If  the  Annual  Conferences  had  vetoed  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference,  it  would  have  been  a  nullity;  and 
if  the  laity,  in  their  primary  assemblies,  liad  protested 
against  it,  that  protest  would  have  been  of  as  much 
force,  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  a  distinguished  preacher 
of  the  Georgia  Conference,  who  opposed  the  plan  of 
separation,  and  was  required  to  vacate  his  charge  of 
the  Colun>ljus  station;  it  would  have  made  the  plan  null 
and  void. 


240  A. DISCUSSION  ON 

Nevertheless,  I  have  already  admitted  that  in  so  far 
as  the  control  of  the  Book  Concern  Fund,  which  was  the 
property  in  suit,  was  concerned,  the  preachers  who  cre- 
ated it  had  the  sole  control  of  it.  They  were,  with 
respect  to  it,  and  to  it  only,  the  Clmrch,  in  a  govern- 
mental sense,  aitd.ll^d  no  constituency  in  this  matter; 
and  in  the  maij(^erhent  of  this  fund,  tliS.  laity-had  fio 
voice.  But,  as  the  same^awygFsays,  (p.  330,)  and  as 
our  discipline  teaches,  "The  Church,  in  a  Methodistic 
sense,  is  the  connexion  of  good  and  pious  men,  who 
make  the  Bible  their  creed,  and  hold  fasl  ±o  that  only 
which  is  there  expressly  disclosed,  or  may  be  thereby, 
by  clear  reasoning,  established."  This  is  what  your 
own  witness  declares  to  be  the  Methodistic  sense  of  the 
term  Church:  the  very  sense  of  the  term  Church  I  am 
explaining  in  my  analysis  of  Methodism.  And  I  am 
sure,  very  sure,  that  I  much  prefer  the  Methodistic  idea 
of  a  Church,  to  a  legal  fiction  wholly  groundless,  in  fact, 
and  in  theory.  And  in  the  Methodistic  sense,  I  know, 
no  lawyer,  nor  any  other  reader  of  our  discipline,  could 
aiBrm  that  our  itinerant  preachers  had  no  constituency, 
in  the  very  face  of  the  fact  so  plainly  stated  in  our  dis- 
cipline, that  none  can  be  licensed  to  preach  among  us 
without  the  vote  of  the  laity;  and  none  can  be  received 
into  the  itinerancy  without  a  vote  of  the  laity,  recom- 
mending the  candidate  to  be  received;  so  that  every 
itinerant  has  been  constituted  such  by  two  distinct  acts 
of  the  laity.  The  affirmation  that  the  itinerant  preach- 
ers had  no  constituency,  must  therefore,  have  been  made 
in  some  other  than  a  Methodistic  sense;  and  if  made  in 
any  other  than  a  Methodistic  sense,  it  has  nothing  to 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  247 

do  with,  and  should  have  no  place  in,  a  just  exposition 
of  Methodism. 

But  Mr.  Lord  said,  "  If  the  General  Conference  had 
chosen  to  become  Socinian,  if  it  had  chosen  to  have 
ad'ppted  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist  forms,  either  of 
government  or  of  doctrine,  it  was  in  its  power  to  do  it." 
Most  assuredly  they  could,  as  individuals  controlling 
their  own  action;  any  member  or  members  of  them,  in 
our  free  country,  could  have  adopted  any  of  the  systems 
specified;  nay,  more,  he  might  with  equal  justice  have 
said,  they  could  have  become  Mnkummerlans,  or  Biidhists; 
and  so  could  any  member  or  members  of  your  associations,  or 
conventions,  or  of  Presbyterian  Synods,  or  assemblus.  The 
members  of  our  General  Conference  could  have  done 
this,  contrary  to  that  restrictive  article,  which  yo\x  for- 
got to  mention,  and  which  forbids  the  altering  of  our 
doctrines  to  the  shade  of  a  hair.  Still,  there  is  another 
could  and  another  would  too,  behind  all  this  matter — that 
is,  the  Annual  Conferences  could  have  taken  every  one 
of  these  delegates  on  their  return  home,  and  have  tried 
and  expelled  them,  and  they  xvould  most  certainly  have 
done  it  too.  If  Mr.  Lord  meant  that  the  members  of  the 
General  Conference  could  have  changed  so  much  as  a 
hair's  breadth  our  articles  of  faith,  even  if  there  had 
been  no  restrictive  article  forbidding  it,  aud  then 
escaped  ecclesiastical  penalties,  he  was  most  cgregi- 
ously  mistaken. 

A  little  knowledge  of  the  history  of  Methodism,  would 
convince  you,  that  no  General  Conference,  either  in  the 
United  States,  or  in  England,  has  ever  established  or 
changed  our  doctrines  by  vote.  We  have  always  acted 
on  the  principle  that,  we  should  not  add  new  doctrines 


248  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

to,  nor  expunge  old  doctrines  from,  the  Gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  have  thought  there  was  some- 
thing of  temerity  in  the  idea  of  voting,  for  instance, 
whether  Christ  were  divine  or  not — whether  he  were 
the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  or  a  mere  worm 
of  dust.  We  cannot  with  so  facile  a  movement,  bestow 
infinite  crowns  upon  Christ,  nor  tear  them  from  his  brow, 
and,  therefore,  do  not  consent  that  such  doctrines  shall 
be  subject  to  majorities.  We  propound  such  truths  as 
heaven's  legislation,  and  whoever  joins  our  Church, 
thereby  declares  his  faith  in  them,  not  as  man-made, 
but  as  heaven-revealed  truths. 

The  excellent  Mr.  Benson  says,  "  Well  was  it  for  both 
preachers  and  people,  that  all  their  doctrines,  and  the 
essential  parts  of  their  discipline,  which,  taken  together, 
may  be  termed  the  constitution  of  the  Methodists,  were 
decided  upon  and  recorded  before  the  existence  of  a  Con- 
ference. No  member  of  the  Methodist  Conference,  how- 
ever respectable  for  parts  or  piety,  would  be  suffered  in 
that  assembly  to  make  the  truth  of  any  doctrine  of  Me- 
thodism or  essential  part  of  its  discipline,  a  subject  of 
debate,  (Mem.  p.  121).  And  for  this  sufficient  reason, 
that  God  has  not  imposed  upon  us  the  duty  of  amend- 
ing his  own  legislation." 

The  notion  that  the  General  Conference  had  no  limit 
to  its  power  but  the  six  restrictive  rules,  had  been 
solemnly  protested  against  by  the  Louisville  Conyen- 
tion,  which  organized  upon  the  demand  of  the  laity,  the 
Church,  South,  in  the  following  language:  a  protest 
drawn  forth  by  the  doctrine  that  a  General  Conference 
had  no  restriction  upon  its  power  to  depose  a  blameless 
bishop.     "  Very  few,  indeed,  of  the  more  fundamental 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  249 

and  distinguishing  elements  of  Methodism,  deeply  and 
imperishably  imbedded  in  the  afiection  and  veneration 
of  the  Church,  and  vital  to  its  very  existence,  arc  even 
alluded  to  in  the  restrictive  articles.  This  theory  as- 
sumes the  self-refuted  absurdity,  that  the  General  Con- 
ference is  in  fact  the^government  of  the  Church,  if  not 
the  Church  itself.  With  no  other  constitution  than  these 
mere  restrictions  upon  the  powers  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  a  system  of  organizing  laws  and 
well-adjusted  instrumentalities  for  the  spread  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  diffusion  of  piety,  and  whose  living 
principles  of  energy  have  so. long  commanded  the  ad- 
miration of  the  world,  would  soon  cease  even  to  exist." 
(Prop.  Case,  p.  131).  "Such  wild  and  revolutionary 
assumptions*  so  unlike  the  faith  and  discipline  of  Me- 
thodism, as  we  have  been  taught  them,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  regard  as  fraught  with  ruin  and  mischief  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  Church,"  (p.  132.) 

The  Hon.'Rufus  Choate,  of  Boston,  the  most  eminent 
lawyer  employed  in  the  case,  states  correctly  the  rela- 
tive powers  of  the  several  departments  of  the  Church. 
He.  says  of  what  he  styles  "that  old,  grand,  well  com- 
pacted, and  once  beautiful  community — the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church:  for  the  administration  of  local  busi- 
ness it  has  local  judicatories:  for  the  conduct  of  its  ge- 
neral affairs  proce&ling  upon  the  plan  of  our  grand  secular 
union,  it  has  a  general  body."-^(p.  264.)  So  Mr.  Choate, 
it  seems,  thought  there  was  a  striking  analogy  between 
our  Church  and  the  Federal  Government;  and  like  sen- 
timents were  entertained  by  John  C.  Calhoun  and  Daniel 
"Webster.     Of  the  organization  of  American  Methodism, 


250  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Mr.  Choate  justly  says:  "The  true  sovereign,  then,  I 
submit,  the  true  sovereign,  by  which  alone  it  can  be  de- 
stroyed, may  be  s.aid  to  be  the  preachers  in  a  mass,  act- 
ing in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  in  strong 
and  general  demand  of  the  laity  for  a  separate  organi- 
zation, through  the  advice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  upon  their 
own  judgment  of  expediency  and  duty,  and  convened 
for  the  express  purpose  of  doing  that  work.  SO  THAT 
IT  WAS  IN  A  REMARKABLE  DEGREE  ANALO- 
GOUS TO  THE  CONVENTION  WHICH  CREATED 
THE  FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION  IN  1787.  The 
true  creator  of  the  Church  was  the  general  and  col- 
lective will  of  American  Methodism,  acting  through  the 
laity,  and  through  the  preachers.  It  was  a  great  eccle- 
siastical Convention  of  the  Methodists  of  America." — 
(p.  268.)  "After  this  Church  was  created,  it  had,  and 
it  necessarily  must  have  had,  administrative  bodies 
through  which,  in  various  spheres,  to  carry  on  its  daily 
business.  Such  are  the  officers  of  the  Church,  such  are 
the  Annual  Conferences,  such  are  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ences, and  such  is,  or  such,  at  least,  was,  in  1792,  the 
General  Conference.  These,  all  of  them,  are  subordinate 
executive  agencies  of  the  principal,  the  constituent  —  the 
ChurchP 

That  Mr.  Choate  was  correct  in  his  view  of  the  part 
performed  by  the  laity,  in  the  organization  of  Methodism, 
is  proved  beyond  all  question,  by  Mr.  Wesley's  letter, 
recommending  the  organization  of  the  American  Church, 
and  by  his  letteug  of  ordination  delivered  to  Dr.  Coke. 
He  "says:  "  Some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these 
[  United]  States  desire  my  advice."  And  hence  he  gave 
them  his  views  of  a  scriptural  Church.     Again:  In  the 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  *         251 

ordination  letter,  he  says:  "Many  of  the  people  in  the 
Southern  provinces  of  North  America  desire  to  continue  un- 
der my  care."  &c. — (Bang's  Church  Hist.,  p.  154.)  Now, 
you  will  observe  that,  at  that  time,  there  were  less  than 
fifteen  thousand  members,  includirig-  blacks,  and  only 
eighty-three  preachers ;  therefore,  if  any  man  can  im- 
peach the  veracity  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  magnify  eighty- 
three  preachers  into  some  tho%csands  of  the  inhabitants  of 
these  States,  he  may  then,  and  not  until  then,  truthfully 
deny  that  the  laity  had  anything  to  do  with  the  organi- 
zation of  American  Methodism, 

Mr.  Choate's  only  error  in  imagining  that  we  had  not 
legally  withdrawn  from  the  Churcli,  North,  was,  that  he 
thought  a  majority  of  Annual  Conferences  less  than  two- 
thirds,  insufficient,  and  this,  with  informalities  in  the 
action  of  the  laity,  prevented  a  legal  division  of  the 
Church;  therefore  we  could  not,  under  law,  recover  our 
just  rights.  But  the  plain  principles  of  justice  under- 
lying the  case — the  fact  that  the  two  Churches  were 
identical  in  doctrines  and  usages — that  the  leading  de- 
partment of  our  Church  Jiad  consented  to  the  division — 
that  Southern  preachers  were,  equally  with  Northern 
preachers,  creators  of  this  fund — and  its  proceeds,  if  di- 
vided with  the  South,  would  be  distributed  among  simi- 
lar beneficiaries,  determined  the  Court,  notwithstanding 
any  apparent  informalities  in  the  action  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  and  of  the  laity,  to  order  the  South  a  just 
proportion  of  tliis  property. 

Hence  the  Book  Concern  Property  Case,  proves  that 
concern  to  be  a  valuable  auxiliary  of  the  gospel,  and  a 
holy  charity.  And  the  principles  involved  in  its  adjudi- 
cation demonstrate,  that  in  all  grand  as  well  as  minor 


252  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

movements  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  laity 
exercise  an  all-controlling  influence;  and  that  the  go- 
vernment of  Methodism,  in  all  respects  in  which  the 
Bible  gives  scope  for  human  legislation,  is  modelled,  as 
Mr.  Choate  says,  after  our  seadar  union. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

I  will  briefly  dispose  of  your  miscellaneous  matter.  I 
think  with  your  judicious  correspondent  from  Mississippi, 
that  it  is  not  just  to  charge  the  conduct  of  Muncer — 
"  that  most  eminent  Baptist,"  and  of  his  licentious  and  tyr- 
anical  band,  upon  modern  Baptists;  albeit,  his  celebrat- 
ed Dran,  Dran,  Dran  proclamation,  shows  upon  the  very 
face  of  it,  that  it  was  a  religious  persecution.  He  says: 
"The  ungodly  will  weep  like  children,  but  be  you  piti- 
less," &c.  I  quoted  it  to  show  that  it  was  equally  illo- 
gical and  unjust  to  charge  Wesley's  love  of  the  British 
Monarchy  upon  American  Methodism. 

With  regard  to  creeds;  so  long  as  there  is  a  copy  ex- 
tant of  the  "  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Baptist  Discipline," 
from  which  I  quoted  so  often  in  this  discussion,  and  so 
long  as  you'  require  the  subscription  of  ministers  to  your 
written  Articles  of  Faith,  as  you  have  done- even  here, 
in  Tuskegee,  I  feel  it  would  be  injustice  to  you  to  class 
you  with  the  Campbellites,  who  object  to  creeds. 

Concerning  open  communion,  I  repeat,  I  concur  with 
your  great  lights,  John  Bunyan,  Baptist  Noel,  and  Ro- 
bert Hall,  and  with  the  last  named,  in  both  his  premises 
and  conclusions. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  whether  I  would  admit  any 
one  to  communion  who  had  been  expelled  from  the  Me- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  253 

tliodist  Church,  and  had  joined  another  Church,   I  re- 
mark— if  not  expelled  for  immoral  conduct,  I  would. 

I  have  been  called  repeatedly,  in  this  discussion,  to 
correct  your  errors ;  you  may  call  them  errors  of  fact, 
or  errors  of  opinion,  just  which  you  please.  I  must 
again  correct  a  very  serious  error,  involving  the  rights 
of  membership.  You  now  admit  that  a  bishop  cannot 
reinstate  an  expelled  member,  but  you  say  the  Quarter- 
ly, Annual,  and  General  Conferences  can,,  and  the  prin- 
ciple is  the  same;  you  are  altogether  mistaken.  All  the 
Annual  and  General  Conferences  in  America  cannot  re- 
instate a  lay  member,  or  have  anything  whatever  to  do 
with  his  trial.  A  member,  if  he  himself  choose,  can  take 
his  case  up  by  appeal  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  and,  in 
Tuskegee,  this  Conference  has  not  a  single  preacher  out 
of  some  fourteen  members,  except  myself  The  presid- 
ing elder  has  not  even  the  casting  vote  in  it.  Nor  has 
the  preacher  in  charge  so  much  as  a  casting  vote  in  the 
trial  of  a  member  before  the  Church.  In  this  particular 
you  have  more  power  over  your  members  than  I  have 
in  my  charge. 

You  have  frequently  asked  for  the  logic  of  my  exposiire 
of  the  disorders  of  the  Baptist  Church,  in  its  bearing  up- 
on the  point  under  discussion.  I  have  answered,  it  was 
the  argumentum  ad  hominem — the  point  was,  if  your  sys- 
tem be  Republican,  much  more  is  ours.  It  was  to  de- 
monstrate the  superiority  of  what  the  Hon.  Rufus 
Choate  calls  that  grand,  beautiful,  well  compacted  or- 
ganization— the  Methodist  Church  government,  over  the 
system  of  sad  anarchy  and  confusion,  called  Baptist 
Church  government.  It  would  have  been  more  agreeable 
to  you,  no  doubt,  if  I  had  stood  on  the  defensive  only,  and 
22 


254  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

not  instituted  a  comparison  between  the  two  systems; 
but  tastes  will  differ.  If  I  have  failed  to  pay  my  res- 
pects to  every  solitary  argument  you  have  advanced,  I 
am  not  aware  of  it. 


"  THE  CONTRAST." 

I  now  examine,  as  a  finale,  the  "  Contrast"  you  ima- 
gine yourself  to  have  discovered  between  Methodism 
and  Eepublicanism;  an  examination  not  very  necessary 
after  the  foregoing  review  of  the  principles  involved  in 
the  Church  suit,  and  an  exposure  of  the  fallacies  of  the 
legal  fictions,  which  were  the  chief  support  of  the  "Con- 
trast." I  pursue  the  work,  however,  intending  that  that 
contrast  shall  be  numbered  with  the  things  which  are 
"twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots." 

I  premise  that  the  Bible  contains  all  the  doctrines 
and  the  essential  principles  of  discipline,  which  govern 
gospel  Churches;  and  the  only  scope  given  to  Church 
legislation  is  in  the  minor  matters  necessary  to  carry 
into  detail  these  principles  of  divine  legislation.  In 
your  "contrast,"  you  seem  to  have  obliterated  the  dis- 
tinction between  what  is  the  allotted  scope  for  Church 
government  and  the  province  of  divine  legislation.  In 
the  last-named  respect,  there  is,  or  should  be,  a  "  con- 
trast" between  the  Church  government  of  gospel 
Churches,  and  the  best  form  of  civil  government;  but 
in  the  former  respect,  that  is,  within  the  lawful  sphere 
of  Church  legislation,  it  is  proper  there  should  be,  and 
in  the  Methodist  Church  there  certainly  is,  a  most  strik- 
ing analogy  between  her  Church  government  and  Ke- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  255 

publicanism.  But  to  particularize,  taking  up  your  points 
seriatim. 

In  the  first  place,  you  say,  "  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  formed  by  representatives  chosen  by 
the  people — the  Book  of  Discipline  by  sixty  clergymen 
— there  was  not  a  single  layman's  representative  in  it." 
Ans.  Mr.  Choate  says:  "  The  Conference  which  created 
the  organization  of  Methodism  was  in  a  remarkable  de- 
gree analagous  to  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Fe- 
deral Constitution  in  1V8Y."  They  were  every  one  of 
them  elected  to  the  ministry  by  the  votes  of  the  people ; 
they  acted  in  obedience  to  their  strong  and  general  de- 
mand, and  so  were  representatives  of  the  people  on  the 
one  hand,  and,  having  been  called  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
to  the  ministry,  were  representatives  of  Christ  on  the 
other  part.  Their  doctrines  and  essential  points  of  dis- 
cipline were  already  formed  to  their  hand  by  divine  le- 
gislation, and  had  been  voluntarily  subscribed  to  hj  the 
people,  and  their  duty  was  only  to  frame  minor  details 
in  order  to  obedience  to  Christ's  legislation,  and  these 
affected  chiefly  the  ministry  themselves. 

Secondly:  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
when  drafted,  was  submitted  back  again  to  the  people; 
the  constitution  of  Methodism  was  adopted  and  forced 
upon  their  membership,  and  no  layman  asked  to  cast  his 
suffrages  by  way  of  adopting  it."  Ans.  The  doctrines, 
and  essential  parts  of  Methodism,  being  Christ's  legisla- 
tion, and  having  been  voluntarily  recognized  as  such  by 
every  member,  by  the  , act  of  joining  our  Church;  the 
less  important  details,  bearing  chiefly  upon  the  itiner- 
ancy, which  were  left  for  regulation  by  a  Conference 
composed  of  ministers  elected  to  the  ministry  by  the 


256  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

people,  like  the  less  important  laws  passed  by  Congress 
for  carrying  out  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, were  not  submitted  back  to  the  people,  upon  whom, 
indeed,  they  had  very  little  if  any  bearing. 

Thirdly:  "  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  are  sub- 
mitted to  their  respective  constituencies;  amendments  to 
the  Discipline  are  foisted  upon  the  Churches  by  the  mere 
prerogative  of  the  General  Conference."  Ans.  Amend- 
ments are  essential  changes  in  the  Constitution,  to  be 
amended,  and  therein  difler  from  ordinary  legislation; 
but  the  essentials  of  the  Methodist  Discipline  are  not, 
and  never  have  been  subject  to  amendment,  either  by 
the  lait}',  or  any  Conference  whatever,  because  we  can- 
not improve  Christ's  legislation.  Nevertheless,  the 
question  of  a  duality  of  General  Conference  jurisdic- 
tions, leaving  intact  all  other  departments  of  the  Church, 
all  offices,  rules,  and  usages,  and  therefore  being  no  es- 
sential change  of  discipline,  was,  notwithstanding,  sub- 
mitted back  to  the  people,  and  decided  according  to 
their  demands. 

Fourthly:  "The  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  highest  oiEcers  recognized  by  the  General  Govern- 
ment, are  chosen  by  the  people  every  two,  three,  or  four 
years;  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Church  are  chosen 
for  life  by  the  General  Conference,  and  are  responsible 
only  to  their  own  consciences."  Ans.  The  duration  of 
their  term  of  office  is  like  the  term  of  office  of  the  Su- 
preme Judges  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  highest 
executive  officers  of  the  army  and  navy  of  our  country; 
the  appointment  of  bishops  is  similar  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  these  Judges  and  high  executive  officers  not  di- 
rectly from  the  people,  and,  like  them,  they  are  subject 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  25 1 

to  impeachment  by  the  Senate  of  the  Methodist  Church 
— the  General  Conference.  They  have  also  been  called 
into  the  ministry  for  life  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  an  ad- 
vantage which  cannot  be  claimed  by  the  civil  officers, 
whose  term  of  office  is  of  equal  duration. 

Fiftlily:  "  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  com- 
posed of  delegates  elected  by  the  suflfrages  of  the  seve- 
ral States,  or  by  the  people  of  the  several  States ;  the 
Annual  and  General  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Church,  ex  offi,cio,  of  the  bishops  and  travelling  clergy; 
no  layman  of  the  Methodist  Church  ever  cast  a  single 
ballot  for  a  representative  to  either  a'  State  or  General 
Conference."  Ans.  The  Senate  of  the  Methodist  Church 
— the  General  Conference — like  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  is  composed  of  delegates  elected  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  State  or  Annual  Conferences;  and  every  single 
member  of  our  State  or  Annual  Conferences  was  consti- 
tuted Buch  by  two  distinct  votes  of  the  people.  More- 
over,, the  action  of  our  Annual  and  General  Conferences, 
unlike  laws  passed  in  Congress  for  the  peoijle,  is  almost 
wholly  restricted  to  the  control  of  the  ministers,  who 
compose  these  bodies;  and  wherein  it  is  not  thus  re- 
stricted, the  laity  in  their  several  Churches,  or  in  the 
side-societies  of  our  Church,  have  co-ordinate  or  equal 
Jurisdiction. 

Sixthly.  "  The  basis  of  representation  in  our  civil  in- 
stitutions is  the  population  of  tlie  States,  except  in  the 
Senate,  but  in  Methodism,  the  basis  of  representation 
is  the  travelling  clergy."  Ans.  Well,  it  is  sufficient  for 
us  if  we  imitate  the  exception  named,  in  the  wisest  em- 
bodiment of  Ptcpublicanism  in  the  land — the  Senate 
chamber.     Still,  we  have  a  more  equable  basis  than 


258  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

that;  our  representation  depends  upon  tlie  number  of 
the  itinerants,  and,  therefore,  the  number  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  our  people;  and  much  more  have  we  an 
equable  basis  of  representation  than  your  last  so  called 
Southern  Convention,  in  which,  though  fourteen  States 
should  have  been  similarly  represented,  there  were  out 
of  two  hundred  and  eight  delegates,  ninety-four  from 
Alabama,  and  none  at  all  from  three  Southern  States, 

Your  Seventhly,  is  but  a  repetition  of  your  fifthly, 
and  is  answered  above. 

Eighthly.  "  Our  civil  constitutions  recognize  checks 
and  balances,  tribunals  to  correct  errors,  &c. ;  but  in 
Methodism,  the  will  of  the  preacher  or  bishop  is  omni- 
potent in  the  premises."  Ans.  Bishop  Hamline  taught 
that  the  will  of  a  General  Conference  was  omnipotent 
to  remove  even  a  blameless  bishop;  and  a  fortiori  a 
bishop  charged  with  imprudencies.  If  this  is  not  a 
check,  what  is  it?  This  system  of  removals,  as  Bishop 
Ilamline  said,  for  unacce.ptabilily  to  the.  peo-pU,  is  like  the 
President's  removals  of  custom  house  officers,  judges 
of  territories,  &c. ;  only  that  civil  removals  extinguish 
official  powers,  whereas  Church  removals  only  change 
the  sphere  of  action;  therefore,  the  power  of  removal 
with  us  in  Church  matters,  is  less  than  that  possessed 
by  the  President  in  civil  affairs. 

Ninthly.  "  In  the  general  government,  the  people 
choose  directly  or  indirectly  every  officer;  in  Methodism, 
the  travelling  ministry  appoint  every  officer,"  &c.  Ans. 
I  admire  your  caution  in  including  the  indirect  choice  of 
every  officer;  for  sometimes  that  choice  is  removed  several 
links  from  the  people,  as  in  the  case  of  these  high 
officers, — Federal  judges,  and  numerous  executive  offi- 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  259 

cers  of  the  government.  In  Methodism,  there  is  an 
equal,  if  not  greater  directness  from  the  people;  all  the 
itinerants  are  called  directly  by  vote  of  the  people,  and 
by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  which  last  respect,  they  have 
a  claim  to  their  office  unknown  to  civil  officers;  and 
having  through  faithfulness,  "purchased  to  themselves 
a  good  degree,"  their  brethren  acknowledge  it  bj^  simply 
appointing  them  as  first  among  equals,  which  action  by 
our  Church  Senate  rests  upon  better  reasons  than  civil 
official  appointments  not  received  directly  from  the 
people. 

Tenthly.  "  The  right  of  petition  is  acknowledged  by 
the  general  government,  but  the  bishops  of  the  Method- 
ist Church  say  '  pardon  us  if  we  know  of  no  such 
rights.' "  Ans.  The  General  Conference  has  never  in  a 
single  instance  denied  the  right  of  petition,  or  of  memo- 
rializing them  upon  any  subject.  The  right  we  deny  is 
the  right  of  a  layman  to  order  a  hundred  ministers, 
more  or  less,  to  the  four  winds,  leaving'  them  to  decamp 
at  his  dictum,  T^hile  he  returned  with  quiet  dignity  to 
his  home.  It  is  like  the  refusal  of  Congress  to  pass 
laws  at  the  instance  of  abolition  petitions,  which  would 
control  political  and  social  interests  in  no  wise  afliecting 
them;  and,  fortunately  for  us,  the  acts  of  Congress  have 
very  distinctly  replied  to  such  busy  bodies  in  other 
men's  matters. — "  We  know  no  such  rights,  we  compre- 
hend no  such  privileges." 

Your  Eleventhly  is  contained  in  your  fifthly,  and  an- 
swered above. 

Twelftli.  "Congress  is  a  body  of  limited  powers;  but 
the  General  Conference   is  a  body  unlimited   in  its  au- 


260  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

thority  to  create,  and  equally  unlimited  in  the  authority 
to  destroy;  it  was  in  its  power  to  become  Socinian,"  &c. 
Ans.  The  six  restrictive  articles  forbidding  any  change 
in  doctrines  and  rules,  &c, ;  the  protest  of  the  Louisville 
Convention  against  this  doctrine;  the  analysis  of  our 
Church  government  by  Mr.  Choate;  the  protest  of  lead- 
ing men  in  the  Church,  North,  and  the  entire  history  of 
Methodism,  proves  this  legal  fiction  not  only  to  be  un- 
founded, but  to  be  utterly  absurd. 

Thirteenth.  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
alleges  that  we,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  do  or- 
dain and  establish  this  Constitution;  the  discipline 
affirms  that  Mr.  Wesley  preferred  the  Episcopal  mode 
of  Church  government.  One  man,  John  Wesley,  author- 
ized the  establishment  of  the  Methodist  Church."  Ans. 
John  Wesley  himself,  says  in  his  letters  I'ecommending 
an  organization,  and' letters  of  ordination  to  Dr.  Coke: 
Some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  States  desire  my 
advice,  and  in  compliance  with  their  desire,  I  have  drawn  up 
a  Hide  sketch.  The  Conference  which  organized  thje  Am- 
erican Methodist  Church,  says  Mr.  Choate,  was  analogous 
in  a  reimrkahle  degree  to  the  Convention  which  formed  the 
Federal  Constitution  in  llSt. 

Fourteenth.  "In  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  are  placed  in 
the  hands  of  three  distinct  classes  of  officers;  in  the 
Methodist  Church,  these  powers  are  all  in  the  same 
hands."  Ans.  Our  bishops  have  no  legislative  powers 
at  all;  our  Annual  and  General  Conferences  have  no 
executive  powers  at  all  in  any  one  of  our  thousands  of 
Churches;  and  our  preachers  in  charge  have  only  judi- 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  261 

cial  powers  in  our  Churches,  besides  other  restrictions, 
too  tedious  to  specify,  and  withal,  the  essential  parts  of 
our  discipline  are  of  Christ  alone. 

Your  fifteenth  is  included  in  your  fifth  and  tenth,  and 
the  answer  to  them  is  my  reply. 

Sixteenth :  "Our  civil  constitutions  recognize  the  prin- 
ciple, that  all  power  is  inherent  in  the  people;  in  the 
Methodist  Church,  all  power  is  inherent  in  the  clergy." 
Ans.  The  clergy  have  no  power,  so  much  as  to  vote  in 
the  expulsion  of  a  member;  they  have  no  power,  so 
much  as  to  vote  upon  our  doctrines  and  the  essential 
parts  of  our  discipline.  The  acknowledgement  of  the 
principle  that  all  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  in 
spiritual  matters,  would  be  an  attempt  to  dethrone 
Christ  as  King  in  Zion. 

Seventeenth:  "In  our  civil  government,  the  property 
is  held  by  the  people;  in  the  Methodist  Church  it  is  held 
and  disposed  of  by  the  clergy."  Ans.  The  Book  Con- 
cern property  is  held  by  the  clergy  in  trust  for  specified 
holy  uses,  and  rightfully,  for  that  fund  was  mainly  of 
their  own  creation;  but  in  all  church-buildings,  colleges, 
&c.,  they  have  no  property  at  all,  not  even  to  the  value 
of  a  single  cent;  they  have  never  claimed  any  right 
beyond  the  privilege  of  appointing  preachers  to  the 
Churches. 

Thus  endcth  the  review  of  "  The  Contrast,"  establish- 
ing the  fact,  that  where  there  should  be  a  contrast  be- 
tween Crod's  Church  and  a  civil  government,  that  con- 
trast exists;  but  within  the  limited  scope  given  for 
Church  legislation,  the  analogy  between  the  Methodist 
Church  govei'nment,  and  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  is  striking.     For  the  contrast  between  the  dis- 


262  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

jointed  scheme,  yclept  the  Baptist  Church  government, 
and  our  Federal  Government,  see  my  former  communi- 
cations. For  brevity,  I  have  compared  our  government 
veith  the  Federal,  and  not  State  governments. 


CONCLUSION. 

In  conclusion,  I  congratulate  all  concerned,  upon  the 
pleasant  character  of  the  discussion  now  closing.  I 
tliank  you  for  the  courtesies  you  have  extended  to  me, 
and  do  cordially  reciprocate  your  kind  regards.  I  feli- 
citate myself  upon  the  prospect  of  the  publication  of  this 
discussion  in  a  permanent  form.  I  believe  that  it  will 
not  only  not  diminish,  but  rather  increase  that  holy 
charity,  but  too  imperfectly  cherished  by  the  two 
Churches  to  each  other;  that  it  will  be  productive 
of  good  to  both  Churches,  and  a  noble  example  of  the 
truth,  that  controversy  can  be  carried  on  with  kindness, 
and  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  forbearance. 

With  this  spirit  of  holy  charity  resting  upon  our 
Churches,  they  will  do  good  work  in  the  cause  of  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church,  Avhatever  be  the  merits  or 
defects  of  their  systems  of  government.  But  without 
this  spirit,  though  our  preachers  "  spoke  with  the 
tongues  of  men,  and  of  angels,  and  understood  all 
mysteries,  and  all  knowledge;  though  our  members 
gave  all  their  goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  their  bodies 
to  be  burned,"  it  would  profit  them  nothing. 

I  am  satisfied  with  the  discussion,  and  M'ish  it  to  go 
to  the  world  upon  its  own  merits.  In  view  of  the  cheap- 
ness of  the  publication,  and  its  consequent  wider  circu- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  263 

lation;  and  that  the  circulation  may  be  equally  wide  in 
both  Churches,  accompanied  as  it  then  will  be  by  the 
endorsement  of  both  Methodists  and  Baptists,  I  hope 
you  will  in  the  magnanimity  which  you  have  hitherto 
shown  me,  and  injustice  to  me,  publish  the  "Addenda" 
recommended  by  the  Tuskegee  Association,  in  a  separ- 
ate volume.  I  propose,  therefore,  in  order  to  secure 
these  ends,  that  yourself,  and  a  committee  of  three  from 
your  Church,  moot  myself  and  those  members  of  the  Me- 
thodist Church  who  endorsed  my  first  article,  to  confer 
upon  and  arrange  all  preliminaries  necessary  to  give 
weight  to  the  publication  of  this  discussion. 
With  sentiments  of  Christian  love, 

I  am  your  brother  in  Christ, 

E.  J.  HAMILL. 

November  8th.  1855. 


264  A  DISCUSSION  ON 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  YI. 

METHODIST   CHURCH  PROPERTY  CASE  AGAIN. 

Error  must  be  removed  before  Truth  can  be  established;  No  foun- 
dation for  Episcopacy  in  the  Scriptures,  according  to  its  most 
able  defenders;  Time,  place,  and  circumstances  supply  its  only 
defence;  Manifest  perversion  and  misconstruction  of  arguments; 
The  objects  for  which  the  Booli  Fund  was  raised,  not  the  subject  of 
debate;  Changing  the  issue;  Another  specimen  of  Methodist  logic; 
The  "  holy  charity"  not  too  holy  for  lay-management;  A  plain 
statement  of  the  case;  The  question  at  issue  between  the  parties; 
Decision  of  the  court;  Mr.  Choate's  "view  of  Methodism"  an- 
swered by  Mr.  Johnson,  declared  sophistical  by  the  court,  and 
overruled;  Difference  between  a  General  Conference,  possessing 
sovereign  power,  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  possess- 
ing limited  powers;  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  granting  the  request  of 
his  American  children;  Application  of  the  principles  involved  in 
the  law  suit  to  the  entire  system  of  Methodism;  An  inventory  of 
facts;  Are  legal  gentlemen  of  the  first  distinction,  and  learned 
judges,  capable  of  understanding  "  the  Book  of  Discipline"  and 
"  the  History  of  Methodism,"  when  they  are  in  evidence  before 
them?  A  trilemma;  Some  credit  ie  due  the  solemn  decisions  of 
our  National  Courts. 

THE   STA^^DARDS. 

Another  appeal  to  the  standards,  in  search  of  the  "  democratic  ele- 
ment;" "Watson's  Theological  Institutes;  Prof.  C.  F.  Deems;  Judge 
Longstreet;  Lorenzo  Dow;  Isaac  Taylor;  Rev.  R.  Abbey;  Aris- 
tocracy;  An  interesting  experiment  suggested;   A  transfer  of 


METHODIST   EPISCOrACY.  265 

property  implies  proprietorship;  Protests;  Judicial  exposition  of 
Methodism:  An  odium  which  is  proof  against  all  "protests;"  The 
"could  '■  and  the  "  would  "'  of  the  General  Conference  not  subject 
to  the  Churches;  Not  likely  that  the  same  men  would  act  differ- 
ently in  a  General  and  Annual  Conference;  Another  extract  from 
the  Opinion  of  the  Court;  Three  remarkable  conclusions;  How  a 
cypher  in' the  premises  becomes  "an  all-controlling-' numerical 
number  in  the  conclusion;  An  improvement  on  Bishop  Taylor's 
discovery  of  Truth  without  evidence;  How  a  system  of  govern- 
ment which  ''  has  no  constituents"  is  "  modified  after  our  grand 
secular  union;"  Synopsis. 

ICSCELLANKOUS. 

Mr.  Wesley,  and  not  "  the  will  of  the  laity,  acting  through  the  min- 
istry," the  father  of  American  Methodism;  The  Munster  insurrec- 
tionists sustain  no  such  relation  to  the  Baptists;  The  authority  of 
creeds;  The  Methodist  Church  more  holy  than  the  Lord's  table; 
The  jurisdiction  of  Quarterly  and  Annual  Conferences;  The  Book 
of  Discipline  responsible  for  the  error;  The  relative  power  of  a 
Methodist  and  Baptist  pastor;  "Anarchy  and  confusion,  called 
Baptist  Church  government;"  "  Tastes  will  differ;"  An  illustra- 
tive anecdote. 

TlIK    CONTRAST. 

A  modest  pledge;  A  wonderful  draft  upon  popular  credulity;  The 
voluntary  adoption  of  a  form  of  government  does  not  make  it 
Republican;  An  essential  change  in  the  constitution  of  Method- 
ism not  submitted  to  the  laity  for  confirmation;  Judges  and  mili- 
tary officers  not  law-making  authorities;  The  constituents  of  a 
General  Conference  and  of  the  Congress  of  the  Uni'.ed  States 
contrasted;  Senate  of  the  United  States;  Baptist  Conventions  not 
legislative  bodies,  therefore,  cannot  infringe  upon  the  rights  of 
the  Churches;  Seventh,  eleventh,  and  fifteenth  points  not  identical 
with  the  fifth;  Bishop  Hamline  stationed  to  guard  the  eighth 
point;  "Philadelphia  Church  Advocate;"  Question  for  the  Pro- 
testant Methodists  to  answer;  "Protests"  vs.  Facts;  Thc"Sland- 
23 


2GG  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ards;"  Bishop  Bascom  detailed  to  guard  the  fourteenth  point; 
Clerical  absolutism;  Trustees  of  Church  property;  Something 
about  "  killing  and  plucking  up  by  the  roots,"  what  the  fathers 
of  "  our  Episcopacy''  planted;  The  sevmieen  points  sustained;  Mr. 
llamill  the  antagonist  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States, 
not  ours;  An  important  concession  the  basis  of  a  strange  conclu- 
sion; Was  apostolic  Church  government  •'  a  disjointed  system  of 
anarchy  and  confusion?''  The  Church  government  adopted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  preferable  to  that  despotic  "  scheme 
yclept"  Methodist  Episcopacy,  fastened  upon  Methodists  by 
Wesley  and  sixty  travelling  preachers,  in  1784;  Proposition  in 
regard  to  the  joint  publication  of  the  discussion;  Concession  to 
secure  this;  Reciprocal  com-tesy;  Conclusion. 

"  We  will  eat  our  own  bread,  and  wear  onr  own  apparel;  only  let  ns  be  called  by  thy 
name,  to  take  away  our  reproaoli." — Isaiah,  iv.  1. 

"  For  they  have  healed  the  hurt  of  the  daughter  of  ray  people  slightly,  saying.  Peace, 
peace,  when  there  is  no  peace."— Jer.  viii,  11. 

If  men's  judgments  were  not  warped  and  distorted 
by  tlieir  prejudiees  and  passions,  truth  would  always 
l)e  a  welcome  guest.  But  ever  since  sin  despoiled  the 
handiwork  of  God,  this  virgin  form  of  heavenly  mould 
has  been  doomed  to  a  perpetual  war  with  the  lower  and 
baser  affections  of  the  human  soul.  Like  the  fabled 
Osiris,  she  has  been  hewn  in  pieces,  and  the  fragments 
have  been  scattered  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  there- 
by devolving  upon  her  sad  friends  the  task  of  hunting- 
up  these  fragments,  and  by  a  kind  of  moral  synthesis, 
restoring  her  again  to  her  former  loveliness  and  sym- 
metry. This  consummation  may  be  long  delayed.  Many 
fierce  contests  may  yet  lie  between  her  votaries  and  the 
promised  victory.  But  He  who  has  commissioned  them 
to  execute  this  sacred  trust  will  see  to  it,  that  their  la- 
bors shall  not  be  intermitted,  until  every  member  of  the 
body  of  this  martyred  saint  shall  be  restorQd,  and  "the 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  267 

Spirit  of  life  from  God  shall  entei"  into  it;  and  it  shall 
stand  up,  and  great  fear  shall  fall  npon  them  who  see 
it." 

Now,  it  must  strike  every  sensible  man  with  all  the 
force  of  an  overwhelming  conviction,  that  the  exposing 
and  subversion  of  error  is  an  essential  condition  preced- 
ent to  the  establishment  of  truth.  A  large  portion  of  the 
labors  of  our  Saviour  was  devoted  to  the  refutation  of  the 
prevailing  errors  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived  upon  earth 
— called  in  Scripture  "the  traditions  of  the  elders."  He 
employed  no  palliating  terms  by  which  to  call'  them. 
With  the  integrity  and  sternness  of  Divinity  itself, 
he  knew  nothing  of  expedients  and  compromises.  De- 
nouncing these  apologists  of  error  as  a  "  generation  of 
vipers"  and  "  hypocrites,"  woe  after  woe  falls  from  his 
lips  like  so  many  claps  of  thunder.  "  In  vain  do  ye 
worship  me,"  he  says,  "  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men."  And  is  error  less  offensive  to  him  now 
than  it  was  thenl  Nay,  verily.  AVhatever  is  taught 
for  doctrines  which  bears  not  the  heavenly  inscription, 
should  be  denounced  as  "  the  commandments  of  men." 
And  he  who  compromises  "  one  jot  or  tittle  "  of  divine 
truth  to  popular  opinion,  is  unworthy  of  human  or  di- 
dine  trust. 

That  Episcopacy  has  no  foundation  in  the  Word  of 
God,  is  freely  admitted  by  its  best  and  most  noble 
friends.  Dr.  Bangs,  quoted  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stevens,  a 
Methodist  clergyman,  in  his  "  Essay  on  Church  Polity," 
says:  "No  specific  form  of  Church  government  is  pre- 
scribed in  Scripture,  and  therefore  it  is  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Church  to  regulate  these  matters,  as  the 
exigencies  of  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances  shall 


2G8  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

dictate  to  be  most  expedient,  and  likely  to  accom- 
plish the  greatest  amount  of  good;  always  avoiding 
any  and  everything  which  God  has  prohibited."  Bishop 
Beveridge,  says:  "Nothing  can  be  determined  from 
what  the  Apostles  did  in  their  early  proceedings,  in 
preaching  the  gospel,  as  to  the  establishment  of  any 
certain  form  of  Church  government."  Ut  supra.  To 
these  we  may  add  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wesley,  in  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Clark:  "  I  think  he  (Bishop  Stillingfleet,) 
has  unanswerably  proved,  that  neither  Chi-ist  nor  his 
Apostles  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  Church  gov- 
ernment, and  that  the  plea  of  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy 
was  never  heard  of  in  the  primitive  ChxirchP — Works,  vol. 
X.  p.  231.  So  that  the  only  defence  of  which  Episcopacy 
admits  at  all,  is  that  which  "time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances" may  suggest.  Throwing  ourselves  even  upon 
this  flimsy  and  miserable  subterfuge  —  a  subterfuge 
which  error  is  always  proposing  when  grappling  with 
truth,  begging  only  to  be  recognized  as  an  equal  party 
in  the  contest — we  say,  granting  all  this,  we  still  fight 
Episcopacy  with  the  weapons  which  "time,  place,  and 
circumstances"  have  thrown  in  our  hands.  As  to  the 
"time,"  it  is  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  cen-tury,  when 
man  is  engaged  in  making  the  last  great  experiment  as 
to  whether  he  is  able  to  govern  himself,  or  whether  he 
must  still  groan  under  a  self-coustitiited  despotism,  re- 
ligious or  political,  "which  has  no  constituents."  And 
tlien,  as  to  the  "place,"  it  is  the  free  Commonwealth  of 
the  United  States,  the  favored  spot  of  earth,  the  asylum 
for  the  oppressed  of  all  nations,  where  all  men  are  re- 
cognized as  equal.  If,  then,  the  "place"  is  to  have  an 
agency  in  modifying  ecclesiastical  polity,  we  claim  that 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  269 

Episcopacy  shall  surrender  her  mitre  to  that  heavenly  ap- 
pointed constituency  in  the  Churches  of  the  saints,  whose 
nobility  has  been  patented  by  the  Triune  God ;  who  are 
his  "kings  as  priests" — even  as  civil  despots  have  been 
made  to  surrender  their  crown  to  that  power  behind  the 
throne  more  potent  than  "  cabals"  and  "  star  chambers." 
And  finally,  as  to  the  "  circumstances"-^-these  all  point 
unmistakeably  to  sncli  a  reformation  in  "our  Episco- 
pacy," as  will  compel  her  to  "know  the  rights  and  compre- 
heiid  the  pnvilegcs"  of  a  "  conslitue^icy." 

But  our  purpose  is  not  to  introduce  a  new  train  of  ar- 
gument in  this  discussion,  for  we  have  already  conclud- 
ed our  part  of  the  argument,  but  simply  to  respond  to 
Brother  HamilFs  last  communication.  And  the  reader 
will  doubtless  agree  with  our  first  impression  on  receiv- 
ing it  from  his  hands.  If  it  is  only  as  logical  as  it  is 
lengthy,  it  is  certainly  a  very  stern  document.  But  on 
wading  through  it,  we  found  it  to  be  but  a  reiteration 
of  much  of.  his  preceding  articles,  adapted  only  to  our 
two  last  articles. 

In  regard  to  the  "  Chcrch  Propektt  Case,"  there  are 
but  two  or  three  points  in  his  article  which  merit  our 
attention.  He  has  doubtless  given  a  faithful  account  of 
the  origin  and  history  of  the  "  Book  Concern."  With 
this,  however,  wc  have  nothing  to  do.  We  have  been 
discussing  a  principle  in  Episcopal  Methodism  which  de- 
termined the  division  of  that  fund  between  the  North 
and  the  South.  And  this  is  the  first  point  to  which  the 
reader's  attention  is  invited.  How  Bro.  Hamill  could 
have  misconstrued  the  whole  drift  of  our  argument  upon 
that  case,  wc  are  at  a  loss  to  determine.     After  stating 


270  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  benevolent  oljects  of  the  "  Book  Concern,"  viz:  to 
circulate  a  religious  literature,  and  support  supernumer- 
ary and  superannuated  preachers,  and  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  deceased  ministers,  he  asks:  "Can  any  ra- 
tional man  pronounce  such  an  institution,  contemplating 
such  holy  ends,  anti-Republican?"  We  utterly  deny 
having  pronounced  any  such  thing.  We  never  so 
much  as  alluded  to  the  objects  contemplated  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  that  "  Concern."  The  objects  it  contem- 
plates is  one  thing^the  principles  on  which  it  is  admin- 
istered is  quite  a  different  thing.  Now,  Brother  Hamill 
seeks  to  make  us  affirm  that  of  the  objects  of  this  fund, 
which  we  affirmed  of  the  principles  on  which  an  equitable 
division  of  it  was  made  between  the  North  and  South, 
by  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country.  And  that  Bro. 
Hamill  had  to  resort  to  such  a  subterfuge  as  this,  to 
meet  as  plain  an  argument  at  least  as  we  are  capable  of 
writing,  and  pervert  it  to  a  purpose  which  never  entered 
our  head,  is  proof  demonstrative  that  he  felt  incompe- 
tent to  meet  it  fairly.  There  is  a  legal  phrase,  called 
"  clianging  the  issue,"  which  simpl}^  means,  that  when 
one  party  feels  unable  to  meet  the  main  issue  involved, 
he  substitutes  another  which  he  can  meet,  and  pleads  to 
it,  as  if  it  were  the  main  point — and  this  is  always  equi- 
valent to  giving  up  the  case.  We  were  discussing  a 
principle  which  determined  an  important  law-suit  be- 
tweeen  Northern  and  Southern  Episcopacy.  Brother 
Hamill  substitutes  the  objects  for  which  the  money  was 
raised,  involved  in  the  contest,  for  the  prinrijjle  which 
decided  the  law-suit,  and  makes  us  affirm  that  of  these 
objects,  which  we  only  affirmed  applied  to  the  principle  in 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  211 

"  our  Episcopacy"  which  decided  the  suit!  Nay,  be 
riug's  the  changes  upon  it,  as  if  he  had  made  a  discov- 
ery which  was  forever  to  vindicate  the  claims  of  Epis- 
copal Methodism  to  as  pure  Republican  Democracy  as 
ever  placed  a  President  in  the  "White  House!  The  ob- 
jects of  the  Metho,dist  Book  Concern  anti-Republican!! 
Is  that  the  subject  we  have  been  discussing',  Brother 
Hamill?  Something  has  been  said  in  this  discussion 
about  "  twistifieation." 

The  logic  of  his  argument  upon  this  part  of  the  sub- 
lect  is  this,  (and  the  reader  will  see  that  it  chimes  in 
very  well  with  much  that  he  has  heretofore  written): 
The  objects  for  which  the  book  fund  was  raised,  were 
"  pure  and  holy,"  nay,  "  the  holiest  and  most  benevolent 
in  the  land:"  e^'go,  Episcopal  Methodism  is  decidedly 
Republican!  So  much,  then,  for  this  misconception  and 
perversion  of  our  argument.  > 

Let  it  be  observed,  furthermore,  that  Brother  Hamill 
does  not  deny  that  the  book  fund  is  under  the  sole  man- 
agement of  the  ministry,  (just  what  we  affirmed,)  nay, 
that  it  ought  to  be  under  their  management,  because  it 
has  mainly  accumulated  under  their  agency.  Here  our 
brother  has  unconsciously  announced  a  principle  which 
we  could  wish  he  had  the  candor  to  acknowledge  as  ap- 
plicable to  the  whole  system.  Let  us  explain.  The 
book  fund  has  mainly  accumulated  under  clerical  agency, 
therefore  it  ought  to  \tv.  under  clerical  management;  so 
affirms  Brother  HamilL  By  parity  of  reasoning,  meet- 
ing-houses, parsonages,  conference  colleges,  and  aca- 
demies, have  been  projected  and  built  under  clerical 
agency,  therefore  they- ought  to  be  deeded  to  them,  in 


2t2  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

their  General  Conference  capacity!  People  have  been 
added  to  the  Church  tinder  clerical  agency,  therefore 
they  ought  to  be  under  their  rule  and  management  11 
What  immaculate  Republicanism  1  And  then — where 
did  this  book  fund  come  from?  Are  the  preachers  so 
well  paid  for  their  services,  that  they  have  been  able  to 
accumulate  a  fund  in  the  United  States,  of  nearly  a  mil- 
lion of  dollars,  out  of  their  salaries?  If  so,  they  have 
been  better  paid  than  we  had  anticipated.  Or  is  it  ow- 
ing to  their  superior  financial  skill,  in  changing  hun- 
dreds into  thousands,  with  Astorian  rapidity?  We  could 
scarcely  expect  this.  We  once  heard  of  five  Yankees 
who  shut  themselves  up  in  a  room,  and  swapped  cloth- 
ing until  they  made  five  dollars  a-piece;  but  we  would 
not  suspect  Methodist  clergymen  as  possessing  such 
skill  as  this.  But  seriously,  we  suppose  that  fund  was 
raised  like  all  other  benevolent  funds  of  the  various 
Churches,  by  a  system  of  agencies,  in  which  the  minis- 
try were  inostly  employed,  in  contributions  from  private 
members,  ministers,  and  everybody  else  who  felt  inclin- 
ed to  give  to  it.  Granted,  therefore,  that  it  has  been 
raised  mostly  through  the  agency  of  ministers,  and  "  for 
the  holiest  and  most  benevolent  of  purposes  in  the  land," 
does  tliat  prove  that  laymen  are  too  "  common  and  un- 
clean" to  assist  in  managing  this  holy  and  benevolent 
fund?  Is  there  a  peculiar  sanctity  imparted  to  it  by  its 
having  passed  through  clerical  hands,  that  it  must  for- 
ever be  placed  beyond  the  management  and  control  of 
those  from  whose  pockets  it  was,  at  least  in  part,  ob- 
tained? Are  they  less  capable  of  managing,  and  more 
likely  to  pervert  it  from  its  "holy  and  benevolent  de- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  •  213 

sign,"  than  the  clorg}'?  Eeally,  we  think  our  brother 
has  paid  rather  an  equivocal  complinient,  either  to  the 
skill  or  the  integrity  of  the  laity  of  his  Church. 

Passing  over  some  minor  matters,  which  we  can  well 
afford  to  do,  we  come  to  the  second  point  in  Bro.  Hamill's 
argument;  and  it  is  one  of  far  greater  importance  than 
the  foregoing.  It  relates  to  the  source  whence  he  has 
drawn  his  testimony  in  the  Property  Case.  It  is  proper 
that  we  again  state  this  case  to  the  reader,  so  that  he 
can  appreciate  the  relative  value  of  the  testimony,  as 
introduced  by  Bro.  Hamill  and  ourself 

In  1844,  on  the  degradation  of  Bishop  Andrew  for  being 
a  slave-holder,  a  series  of  resolutions  were  passed  by  the 
General  Conference,  contemplating  a  contingent  division 
of  Church  property  between  the  North  and  the  South. 
Commissioners  were  appointed  to  carry  out  the  provi- 
sions of  these  resolutions  in  case  that  contingency  occur- 
red— which  was  the  organization  of  a  Southern  General 
Conference,  and  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Annual  Conferences.  These  commissioners 
were  specifically  instructed  to  negotiate  an  equitable 
division  of  the  assets  of  the  Book  Concern,  with  an  equal 
numltor  of  commissionei's  appointed  on  the  part  of  the 
South.  Immediately  after  the  Southern  General  Con- 
ference was  organized,  the  commissioners  on  the  part 
of  the  South,  signified  their  readiness  to  discharge  their 
duty,  but,  from  sundry  causes,  the  Northern  commis- 
sioners refused  to  meet  them.  Whereupon  suit  was 
brought  by  the  Southern  commissioners  to  recover  their 
jiroportion  of  said  funds,  according  to  tlie  terms  stipu- 
lated in  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Coufcrence.     To 


2t4  •  A  1)ISCUSSI0N  ON 

prevent  any  sort  of  confusion,  we  will  give  a  statement 
of  the  stiit,  as  reported  and  published  .by  both  divisions 
of  the  Church : 

"  Circuit  Court,  United  States,     ■ 
For   the    Southern   District  ■  of  New    York. 
The  Honorable   Judges  Nelson  and  Betts,  Presiding. 


:oii,  and  others,  ^ 
vs.  [• 

I,  and  others.     ) 


Henry  B.  Bascoh, 

vs.  \-   In  Equity. 

George  Lane, 


Counsel  for  Flaintiffs — Mr.  D.  Lord,  Hon.  Reverdy 
Johnson,  and  Mr.  Johnson,  Jr. 

Counsel  for  Defendants — Hon.  Rufus  Choate,  Mr.  Geo. 
Wood,  and  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher." 

Now,  the  question  at  issue  between  the  parties  liti- 
gant in  this  suit,  was,  as  stated  by  Judge  Nelson,  "  As 
to  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  authorize  a 
separation  of  the  Church  organization,"  upon  the  settle- 
ment of  which  question  "  depended  the  division  of  the 
common  property." — Appendix  to  Property  Case,  p.  10. 
The  counsel  for  the  South  maintained  that  the  General 
Conference  had  the  power  to  atithorize  a  separation 
of  the  Church,  and  to  divide  its  property.  The  counsel 
for  the  North  denied  such  power  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence. The  Court  decided  this  i^otnt  in  favor  of  the  ■plain- 
tiffs, and  they  consequenthj  gained  the  suit.  For  this  reason 
we  made  our  quotations  from  the  speeches  of  the  coun- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  215 

sel  for  the  successful  party.  Mr.  Johnson  aud  his  col- 
leagues maintained  that  the  Conference  of  1184,  who 
"  organized  the  Church,  established  its  doctrines  and 
discipline,"  &c.  possessed  no  more  nor  less  power  than 
the  Conference  of  1844,  only  as  they  restricted  them- 
selves by  "  the  six  restrictive  rules."  Mr.  Choate  and 
his  colleagues  maintained,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Con- 
ference of  1184  was  sici  generis — that  when  it  organized 
the  Church,  it  disappeared,  and  has  never  convened 
since.  "  When  that  Conference  had  done  its  work  of 
creating  the  Church,"  says  Mr.  Choate,  "  it  retired,  dis- 
appeared, and  has  never  again  been  assembled  in  the 
history  of  Methodism." — Property  Case,  p.  266.  This 
was  the  issue  between  them.  The  counsel  for  the  plain- 
tiffs alleged  in  proof  of  their  position,  that  the  General 
Conference  had,  time  and  again,  exercised  all  the  powers 
of  sovereignty;  that  they  had  extended  their  jurisdic- 
tion beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the  United  States, 
into  Canada  and  Texas;  that  they  had  authorized  a  se- 
paration of  the  Canada  Conference  from  the  General 
Conference,  in  1828;  that  they  had  frequently  changed 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  &c.  &c.  And,  we  repeat  it,  the 
South  gained  the  suit — and  gained  it,  too,  upon  that  ex- 
position of  Methodist  Church  polity  furnished  by  their 
counsel.  Wo  shall  still  further  prove  before  we  close  this 
article,  from  the  decision  of  the  Court,  that  the  doctrines 
advanced  by  the  Southern  counsel,  and  which  we  extract- 
ed into  tlio  article  IJrothcr  Ilaraill  reviews,  were  trium- 
phantly sustained. 

And  while  on  this  subject,  wc  must  correct  anothoi; 
very  sad  blunder  into  which  Brother  Ilamill  has  fallen. 
Quoting  Mr.  Choate  as  saying  that  the  General  Confer- 


276  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ence  which  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
iu  1784,  was  ^'  anolagous  to  the  Convention  that  created  the 
Federal  ConstitiUion  in  17S7,"  he  seems  to  think  he  has 
made  the  discovery,  which  at  once  and  beyond  all  doubt, 
assimi].ates  Episcopacy  to  Eepublicanism.  Here  our 
brother  has  evidently  shouted  before  he  got  happy.  We 
are  really  sorry  to  deprive  him  of  the  last  and  only  plank 
upon  which  he  has  planted  "  our  Episcopacy,"  particu- 
larly as  the  seas  are  rough.  But  thankless  as  will  be 
the  task,  and  painful  as  is  the  necessity,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  do  it.  In  what  did  the  analogy  between  the 
General  Conference  in  1784,  and  the  Convention  of  the 
States  in  1787  consist?  In  the  manner  in  which  the 
members  of  each  tvere  chosen — by  the  poprdar  will  ?  No 
man  will  pretend  this  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  that  not  a 
single  Methodist  Society  in  the  Union  ever  elected  a  de- 
legate to  that  Conference.  Mr.  Choate  himself,  though 
interested  to  prove  that  it  was  called  by  the  Societies, 
could  not  do  so  even  to  his  own  satisfaction;  for  he  says: 
"It  may  be  stated  that  tlie  true  creator  of  the  Church 
was  the  general  and  collective  will  of  American  Method- 
ism acting  through  the  laity  and  through  the  preachers. 
Or  it  may  be  said  that  it  was  the  collective  will  of  Ame- 
rican Methodism,  expressing  itself  and  acting  through 
an  extraordinary  Convention,  colled  under  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  for  that  express  purpose,  wliich  did  its  work,  and 
then  disappeared." — (p.  268.)  Observe,  Mr.  Choate 
.seeks  to  entrench  himself  npon  both  of  these  positions; 
feo  that  if  the  first  failed  {and  it  did  fail,)  he  could  retreat 
upon4he  second.  In  what,  then,  did  the  analogy  consist? 
Why,  clearly  in  this;  that  they  were  both  extraordinary 
Conventions,  convened  for  extraordinary  purposes,  and 


METHODIST  EPLSCOPACY.  271 

which  "  (lid  their  work,  and  thon  disappeared."  And 
yet  Brother  Hamill  would  impress  the  reader  with  the 
idea  that  Mr.  Choate  recognized  a  beautiful  analogy  be- 
'tweeu  Episcopal  Methodism,  as  organized,  and  our  civil 
government,  as  organized!  when  Mr.  Choate  only  alleg- 
ed the  analogy  between  the  Conference  of  1*184,  as  or- 
ganizing Methodism,  and  the  Convention  of  1787,  as  or- 
ganizing our  Federal  Constitution,  in  the  single  point, 
that  they  each  did  their  work  and  ceased  to  exist. 
Whether  our  brother's  blindness  in  this  respect  is  moral 
or  natural,  it  becomes  us  not  to  say. 

As  Mr.  Choate  stated  in  his  speech  that  "  the  preach- 
ers acted  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,"  in 
the  Conference  of  1784;  that  that  body  was  "American 
Methodism  acting  through  Ihe  laity  and  through  the  min- 
istry," and  ,as  Brother  Hamill  seems  to  endorse  that 
sentiment,  we  will  let  Mr.  Johnson,  one  of  the  counsel 
for  the  South,  answer  both.     He  says: 

"  Where  did  the  predecessors  of  the  Northern  preach- 
ers, from  whom  all  autliority  is  derived,  look  for  the 
power  to  call  the  Conference  of  1784,  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  calh^d?  To  John  Wesley,  as  the  per- 
son in  whom,  at  that  time,  was  vested  the  entire  and  exclu- 
sive sovereign  power  of  the  Church.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
inquire  whether  by  virtue  of  some  inherent  and  inalien- 
able right,  the  power  might  not  have  been  found  in 
these  gentlemen,  in  1784,  irrespective  of  the  will  of 
Wesley.  It  is  sufficient  for.  me  to  show,  that  in  1784, 
they  claimed,  and  claimed  alone,  tlie  power  they  exerted 
in  the  Conference  of  that  year,  under  the  authority  of 
Wesley,  as  the  aiUhor,  sovereign.,  and  founder  of  the  Church. 
Who  constituted  the  Conference  of  1784?  My  learned 
24 


218  A   DISCUSSION  ON 

brother  who  spoke  first  upon  the  other  side,  would  have 
had  your  Honors  to  believe,  what  of  course  he  satisfied 
himself  was  the  fact,  that  that  Conference  was  called 
together  not  only  by  the  preachers  of  the  Church,  but 
by  all  the  laj'  members.,  Tliere  is  not  a  word  of  truih  in 
the.  statement,  although,  of  course,  the  learned  counsel  be- 
lieved it  to  be  true.  It  was  a  general  assembly  of  the 
preachers  connected  with  the  Methodist  denomination 
of  Christians,  convoked  only  as  preachers,  without  re- 
ference to  any  lay  authority,  express  or  implied.  Not 
being  as  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Church  as  my 
colleague,  who  was  kind  enough  to  undertake  to  lay 
before  the  Court  the  evidence  which  is  found  spread  up- 
on the  [records  in  the  case,  I  inquired,  as  soon  as  the 
statement  was  made,  whether  there  was  any  foundation 
for  the  assertion  that  the  Conference  of  1784,  had  any 
other  authority  for  its  convocation  than  the  authority  of 
Wesley,  and  the  authority  in  themselves  as  preachers, 
alone  connected  with  the  Methodist  Association.  I  found 
that  there  was  not.  If  your  Honors  will  turn  to  page  5  of 
the  Proofs  No.  1,  you  will  find,  that  immediately  succeed- 
ing the  letter  of  Wesley,  which  authorized  the  separate 
organization,  it  is  stated:  'To  carry  into  effect  the  pro- 
posed organization,'  (Wesley's  proposed  organization,) 
'  a  General  Conference  of  preachers  was  called,  to  meet 
at  Baltimore,  at  Christmas,  1784.  Sixty  out  of  the 
eighty-three  preachers  then  in  the  travelling  connexion, 
attended  at  the  appointed  time.  At  this  Conference, 
say  tlic  Annua,!. Minutes  of  1785,  it"  was  luianinKJUsly 
agreed  that  circumstances  made  it  expedient  for  us'  (that 
is,  the  preachers)  'to  become  a  separate  body,'  &c. 
They  admit  no  constituency.     The  time  is  perhaps  coming, 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  219 

when,  in  all  probability,  ihcy  will  be  obliged  to  admit  one 
for  the  good  of  the  Church.  They  resolve  for  themselves,  and 
for  themselves  alone,  as  the  possessojs  of  all  the  ecclesiastical 
power  hnoicn  to  the  Methodist  Church,  to  carry  out  the  par- 
ticular organization  authorized  by  John  Wesley,  without 
reference  to  any  other  authority  than  this,  and  their  own  con- 
victions that  the  good  of  the  Church  demanded  such  a 
special  and  particular  organization." 

As  to  the  declaration  of  Mr..Choate,  that  "for  the 
conduct  of  its  general  affairs,  it  proceeds  on  the  plan 
of  our  grand  secular  union,  having  a  general  body,"  &c. ; 
we  submit,  that  if  Mr.  Choate  had  proven  that  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  court,  he  would  have  gained  the  case — 
for  this  obvious  reason:  If  the  General  Conference  had 
no  more  authority  as  an  ecclesiastical  body,  than  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  has  as  a  civil  body,  then 
it  had  no  right  to  authorize  a  separation  of  tlie  Church, 
any  more  than  Congress  has  a  right  to  destroy  this 
confederacy.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  is 
governed  by  a  written  constitution,  adopted  by  a  power 
superior  to  themselves,  and  they  dare  not  violate  it.  The 
■Tjreneral  Conference  is  governed  by  a  constitution 
adopted  by  themselves,  and  which  recognizes  no  poiver  beyond 
themselves.  And  hence  the  court  decided,  that  the  preach- 
ers "  when  assembled  in  General  Conference,  according 
to  the  usages  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  represent  tlicm- 
selvos,  and  have  no  constituents."  AEr.  Choate,  therefore, 
failed  in  establishing  his  point  before  the  court,  and 
lost  the  suit.  Thrown  into  an  ai'guinent,  it  may  be 
stated  thus:  The  power  to  dissolve  a  social  or  religious 
compact,  is  an  attribute  of  sovereignty.  The  General 
Conference  of  tlie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  "  accord- 


280  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ing-  to  the  usage  and  discipline  of  that  Church,"  may 
exercise  this  power.  Therefore,  the  General  Conference 
is  the  sovereign  power  of  that  Church,  "responsible 
only  tD  themselves"  for  its  exercise.  And  yet  Brother 
Hamill  quotes  this  declaration  of  Mr.  Choate  to  show 
the  Republicanism  of  his  Church! 

His  quotation  from  Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  yielding  to 
the  wishes  of  his  American  children  to  give  them  a 
separate  organization,  only  proves  what  Mr.  Johnson 
affirms,  that  he  (Wesley)  "  is  the  author,  sovereign,  and 
founder  of  the  ChivrchP  If  several  thousand  Englishmen 
should  petition  the  Queen  and  Parliament  to  pass  a 
certain  law,  and  their  wishes  should  be  respected, 
would  that  prove  that  English  Monarchy  was  Repub- 
licanism. The  very  fact  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  petitioned 
to  grant  them  a  separate  organization,  is  a  concession 
that  they  had  no  right  to  form  one.  If  our  colonies, 
after  the  Revolutionary  war,  had  petitioned  Lord  North, 
or  King  George,  for  a  constitution,  instead  of  forming 
one  for  themselves,  what  an  impressive  commentary  on 
their  democracy!! 

The  third  and  last  point  in  this  part  of  Bro.  Hamill's" 
communication,  requiring  notice,  is  that  which  relates 
directly  to  the  application  of  the  principle  above  suggest- 
ed, to  the  Property  Case.  After  demurring  to  the  ex- 
tracts of  the  speeches  we  made,  from  Messrs.  Lord  and 
Johnson,  Brother  Hamill  says:  "  It  may  be  asked,  then, 
did  the  Church,  South,  recover  its  property  upon  false 
principles?  I  answer,  no."  The  principles  set  forth  in 
the  debate,  were  "false  in  their  application  to  all  other 
matters  of  Church  polity,  but  true,  in  their  application  to 
the  Booh  Concern  Fund,"  &c.     Truly  "  our  Episcopacy" 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  281 

must  be  an  impenetrable  mystery.  If  neither  the  first 
lawyers  nor  the  highest  judicial  functionaries  of  the 
United  States  can  understand  it,  we  need  not  wonder 
that  our  wiper /inence  has  been  so  sternly  rebuked  for  dar- 
ing to  look  into  its  sublime  mysteries!  Now,  this  spe- 
cial "  application"  of  special  "  principles"  to  special 
"  cases"  is  a  very  convenient  weapon  with  whicli  to 
fight  the  battles  of  Episcopacy.  If  local  preachers  and 
private  members  petition  for  "mutual  rights"  in  the  Ge- 
neral and  Annual  Conferences,  this  special  "principle" 
will  apply  with  special  emphasis  to  that  "case,"  and 
they  are  answered  with,  "  pardon  us  if  v\^e  know  no  such 
rights,  if  we  comprehend  no  such  privileges."  If  a  law- 
suit is  pending  between  "  our  Episcopacy,"  North,  and 
"  our  Episcopacy,"  South,  in  which  the  stake  is  nearly 
half  a  million  of  dollars,  why  then,  also,  this  special 
"  principle"  applies  with  singular  appropriateness  and 
profit  to  this  "  case."  And  then  the  fund  has  been  most- 
ly raised  and  accumulated  b}^  clerical  agency,  and  is  so 
sacred,  and  designed  for  "  the  holiest  and  most  benevo- 
lent purposes;"  that  it  must  not  be  managed  by  any 
other  than  clerical  hands.  In  this  respect,  too,  "  they 
admit  no  constituents;  thej''  have  no  constituents."  So 
that  at  whatever  point  we  direct  our  search  for  a  "  con- 
stituency" in  "  our  Episcopacy,"  either  in  its  ecclesiastical 
or  temporal  jurisdiction,  this  special  principle  applies  with 
peculiar  propriety  to  that  special  point.  We  should 
like  to  know  if  the  parts  are  thus  destitute  of  the  "  De- 
mocratic element,"  what  is  to  be  pronounced  of  the 
whole  ? 

But  let  us  look  into  this  chavicleon  principle,  whicli  ap- 
plies so  peculiarly  to  evcrj'  case,  and  whicli  yet  leaves 


282  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  whole  system  perfectly  free  from  its  contagion. 
Now,  we  assert,  that  this  principle — the  principle  of  ahso- 
solute  irresponsille  clerical  power — pervades  the  whole  gov- 
ernmental ECONOMY  OF  EPISCOPAL  !Methodism.  Take  the 
following  inventory  of  facts  in  proof  of  this  assertion. 
The  bishops  appoint  all  the  circuit  riders  and  stationed 
preachers  to  their  charges;  the  bishops  appoint  every 
presiding  elder  to  his  circuit;  the  preachers  and  ciders 
appoint  all  the  class  leaders,  stewards,  and  trustees, 
who  hold  church  property;  the  bishops,  elders,  and 
preachers  remove  at  their  pleasure,  all  their  respective 
appointees,  the  removed  party  having  no  alternative 
but  submission,  there  "  being  no  tribunal  to  correct  errors 
or  rectify  wrongs;"  that  in  not  a  single  department  of 
their  government,  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  are 
laymen  eligible  to  seats;  that  both  the  State  and  Ge- 
neral Conferences  are  composed,  ex  officio,  of  the  travel- 
ling preachers  and  their  representatives;  that  when  local 
preachers  and  private  members  petition  for  a  representa- 
tion in  these  bodies,  they  are  answered  in  language, 
which,  if  addressed  to  American  citizens  in  their  civil 
capacity,  by  our  National  or  State  government,  would 
instantly  light  up  the  fires  of  a  second  revolution: 
"Pardon  us  if  we  know  no  such  rights,  if  we  compre- 
hend no  such  p>rivileges;"  that  this  body  of  clergy,  in  cre- 
ating the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1784,  and  dis- 
solving it  in  1844,  exercised  the  highest  attributes  of 
sovereignty  known  on  earth;  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence, in  transferring  "all  the  property  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  col- 
leges, schools.  Conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every 
kind,"  within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  to 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  283 

the  Church,  South,  on  the  contingency  of  its  organiza- 
tion, did  assert  all  the  proprietorship  in  said  propcrt}^ 
which  the  laws  of  the  country  guaranty  to  any  corpo- 
ration; that  in  authorizing  an  equitable  division  of  the 
"  Book  and  Chartered  Fund,"  the  same  principle  of  pro- 
prietorship is  involved;  and  that  such  facts  as  these 
being  in  evidence  before  the  Court,  in  the  "  Church  Pro- 
perty Case,"  that  august  tribunal  could  have  made  no 
other  decision  in  that  case  than  that  "  the  lay  members  of 
the  Church  have  no  part  or  connection  with  its  governmental 
organization,  and  never  had.  The  travelling  preachers 
comprise  the  embodiment  of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and 
temporal;  and  when  assembled  in  General  Conference, 
according  to  the  usages  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  repre- 
sent themselves  and  "have  no  constituents." 

But  Brother  Hamill,  conscious  that  the  facts  and  ar- 
guments we  had  adduced  from  the  "  Property  Case," 
could  not  be  answered,  admits  that,  so  far  as  the  "rights 
of  property,  which  the  Courts  of  our  country  will  recog- 
nize," are  concerned,  "  the  opinions  of  legal  gentlemen 
....  are  worthy  of  'the  highest  respect.  But  upon 
questions  of  Church  polity,"  they  "cannot  possibly  un- 
derstand tliem  as  thoroughly"  as  those  who  are  "  con- 
nected with  their  respective  Church  systems;"  and  then 
asks  and  answers,  as  before  stated,  thus:  "Did  the 
Church,  South,  recover  its  property  upon  false  prin- 
ciples? I  answer,  no;  there  were  principles  set  forth 
in  the  debate,  which  were  false  in  their  application  to 
all  other  matters  of  Church  polity,  but  true  in  their  ap- 
plication to  the  Book  Concern  Fund."  Now,  this  is  a 
Bpecies  of  special  pleading  which  would  do  honor  to  a 
Jesuit.     Let  us  look  at  it:  A  question  of  Church  pro- 


■  284  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

perty  comes  np  before  one  of  our  highest  judicial  tribu- 
nals, to  be  decided;  the  parties  to  the  suit  are  respon- 
sible for  the  testimony  upon  either  side;  the  Court  is 
responsible  for  the  application  of  the  law  to  the  state  of 
facts  involved  in  the  testimony.  On  page  25,  of  the 
"Church  Property  Case,"  it  is  agreed  by  the  parties  to 
the  suit,  "  that  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcqpal  Church,  printed  in  1840,  which  was  the  book 
in  force  at  the  time  of  the  Conference  of  1844,"  together 
with  "Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Church," 
"shall  be  considered  as  evidence."  These  "Standards" 
set  forth  the  general  polity  of  that  hierarchy.  Either, 
therefore,  the  "Book  of  Discipline"  and  "Emory's  His- 
tory," contained  "principles  which  were  false  in  their 
application  to  all  other  matters  of  Church  polity,  but  true 
in  their  application  to  the  Book  Concern  Fund,"  or  the 
"  legal gentlevian"  who  argued  the  case,  and  the  learned  judges 
who  decided  it,  were  incompetent  to  comprehend  the  evidence  he- 
fore  them!  or  if  they  comprehended  it,  they  have  wilfully 
perverted  it!  "Our  Episcopacy"  may  take  either  horn  of 
the  trilcmma.  The  decision  was  made,  if  the  judges 
are  to  be  believed,  "according  to  the  usages  and  discipline 
of  the  Church,"  as  set  forth  in  its  "Standards."  1^  these 
"Standards"  are  "false"  the  "Fathers"  made  them  so, 
and  the  children  ought  to  correct  them.  If  judgment 
has  been  perverted,  either  through  the  imbecility  or  cor- 
ruption of  our  judiciary.  Judges  Nelson  and  Betts  ought 
to  be  impeached.  In  either  case  "our  Episcopacy" 
ought  to  set  herself  to  work  with  all  possible  prompt- 
ness and  energy.  The  merest  petifogger  that  ever  read 
half  a  dozen  pages  in  Blackstone,  could  not  hesitate  one 
moment  after  reading  the  opinion  of  that  Court,  in  de- 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  285 

ciding,  that  the  principles  on  which  that  opinion  was 
based,  were  the  essential  organic  elements  of  Episcopal 
Methodism.  This,  neither  Bro.  Hamill,  nor  any  other 
sane  man,  will  deny.  If  the  learned  tribunals  of  our 
country  cannot  comprehend  "this  system  of  surpassing 
energy,"  we  humbly  submit,  that  it  is  time  it  was 
simplified  to  their  comprehension.  The  American  peo- 
ple have  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  opinions  of  our 
national  Courts  with  some  degree  of  respect.  And  it 
need  not  surprise  this  "kingdom  of  the  clergy,"  if  the 
judicial  records  of  the  country  shall  be  believed,  their 
averment  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

THE  STANDARDS. 

But  we  are  asked  why  we  did  not  appeal  to  the  "  Stan- 
dards of  our  Church,"  instead  of  to  the  opinions  of  "legal 
gentlemen,"  in  this  discussion;  and  it  is  intimated  that 
our  "failure  to  do  this  is  an  evidence  of  the  weakness  of 
our  cause,  and  the  groundlessness  of  our  allegations." 
How  our  brother  could  make  such  an  intimation  as  this, 
with  this  whole  discussion  staring  him  in  the  face,  we 
are  really  at  a  loss  to  determine.  He  could  not  hope, to 
deceive  anj'body  who  has  read  our  articles,  for  that 
were  impossible,  and  we  therefore  acquit  him  of  that 
charge.  The  most  charitable  construction  we  can  place 
upon  the  statement  is,  that  the  stress  of  a  dire  necessity 
which  knows  no  law,  suspended  for  a  time  the  opera- 
tion of  every  other  principle  in  his  heart  and  mind,  but 
"our  Episcopacy;"  that,  as  we  had  occasion  to  remark 
in  rcgard^to  another  champion  of  Methodism,  it  was  not 


286  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Brother  Hamill  who  did  this,  but  Episcopacy  that  dwelt 
iu  him.  Reader,  have  we  not  appealed  to  these  "  Stand- 
ards" from  the  very  commencement  of  this  discussion? 
Have  we  ventured  to  state  a  single  fact,  from  first  to 
last,  which  we  have  not  sustained  by  these  very  Stand- 
ards? Has  our  competitor  contested  the  authenticity  of  a 
single  one  of  these  fact  si  Or  arc  we  mistaken  as  to  what 
these  "Standards"  are?  Are  the  writings  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley; the  Book  of  Discipline;  the  accredited  histories  of 
Methodism,  issued  by  the  "Book  Concern;"  the  reported 
proceedings  of  General  Conferences ;  the  speeches  and 
communications  of  the  bishops,  doctors,  and  clergy  of 
the  Church;  are  these,  we  say,  to  be  recognized  as  the 
"Standards"  of  Methodism?  To  these  we  have  appealed 
to  substantiate  every  fact  and  principle  we  have  alleged 
through  this  entire  discussion.  Two  of  these  "  Stand- 
ards, to-wit:  The  Book  of  Discipline  and  Emory's  His- 
tory, furnished  the  testimony  on  which  the  "  Property 
Case"  was  decided  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court, 
for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York.  And  yet  our 
"failure  to  do  this  is  prima' facie  evidence  of  the  weak- 
ness of  our  cause,  and  groundlessness  of  our  allega- 
tions!!" Now,  we  are  perfectly  willing  for  any  tribunal 
on  this  earth,  except  the  "  travelling  clergy,"  to  decide 
whether  we  have  not  appealed  to  "  our  Standards"  quite 
as  often  as  Episcopacy  itself  has  any  right  to  demand. 

Before  dismissing  this  point,  we  shall  introduce  a  few 
more  quotations  from  the  "  Standards"  and  other  sources, 
which  we  think  are  entitled  to  some  respect  in  the  pre- 
mises. In  Watson's  Theological  Institutes,  a  work 
which  we  suppose  may  be  dignified  by  the  appellation 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  281 

of  "Standard,"  as  it  is  "the  course  of  study"  for  tlie 
ministry  of  tbe  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  have 
the  following:  "  To  raise  into  legislators  and  censors  all 
the  members  of  a  Church,  the  young,  the  ignorant,  and 
the  inexperienced,  is  to  do  them  a  great  injury.  It  is 
the  sure  way  to  foster  debates,  contentions,  and  self- 
confidence,  to  open  the  door  to  intrigue  and  policy,  to 
tempt  forward  and  conceited  men  to  become  a  kind  of 
religious  demagogues,  and  entirely  to  destroy  the  salu- 
tary influence  of  the  aged,  experienced,  and  gifted  mem- 
bers, by  referring  every  decision  to  members  and  suf- 
frages, and  placing  all  that  is  good  and  venerable  and 
influential  among  the  members  themselves,  at  the  feet 
of  a  Democracy." — Vol.  ii.  p.  594.  '  Why,  the  veriest 
apologist  of  monarchy  in  Europe,  €0uld  not  have  written 
a  sentence  exhibiting  more  supreme  contempt  for  the 
very  spirit  and  genius  of  our  civil  government  than  this 
extract  from  one  of  "our  Standards."  The  "members  of 
a  Church" — the  laity — are  represented  as  "ignorant,  in- 
experienced, contentious, -self-confident,  conceited,  reli- 
gious demagogues^'  And  then  this  learned  diviue,  by  way 
of  putting  upon  this  assemblage  of  "conceited  men"  the 
crowning  odium,  calls  them  "a  DemocracyP'  We  opine, 
that  if  the  lofty  pretensions  of  the  clergy  were  placed  at 
the  feet  of  such  a  Democracy,  there  would  be  a  storm 
raised;  there  would  be  "debates  and  contentions"  such 
as  "our  Episcopacy"  has  never  witnessed  before;  and 
which  wouId^'iTectually  sweep  away  the  last  vestiges 
of  clerical  domination.  We  can  but  admire  the  discre- 
tion of  "  our  Standards"  in  not  "  placing  at  the  feet  of  a 
democracy,"  the  "divine  right"  of  the  clergy  to  rule 
over  them. 


288  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

The  following  is  from  Prof  C.  F.  Deems,  of  North 
Carolina;  and  although  he  may  not  be  exactly  a  "stand- 
ard," he  is  nevertheless  a  very  good  Methodist: 

"  If  we  may  apply  the  figure  to  Methodism,  we  can 
very  readily  see  that  a  government  suited  to  the  sooty 
colliers  of  England,  servants,  and  the  uncultivated,  who 
had  grown  up  amid  all  the  peculiarities  of  an  aristo- 
cratic country,  might  hardly  be  fit  for  a  Church  among 
whose  laymen  are  presidents,  and  professors  in  colleges, 
judges  of  supreme  courts,  senators,  and  men  liberalized 
by  professional  learning  and  polite  associations.  The 
fact  is,  John  Wesley  formed  societies  ;  ours  is  a  Church. 
John  Wesley  did  not  make  government  a  special  study; 
but,  being  a  strong  man  and  a  violent  tory,  and  finding 
a  sect  gathering  around  him  to  be  governed,  he  seized 
the  reins — he  became  autocrat;  and  through  his  helpers 
he  governed  most  ably.  It  was  very  natural  that  when 
our  Church  was  formed,  it  should  be  built  somewhat 
after  the  model  of  the  '  societies '  of  Wesley.  Is  it  not 
•  too  exact  a  copy,  and  may  it  not  need  mending?  Even 
if  Wesley  had  made  government  a  study,  and  was  by 
nature  superior  to  the  mass  he  controlled,  there  are 
laymen  in  our  Church  in  this  day,  as  great  natively  as 
Wcsle}^,  who  have  paid  much  more  attention  to  the  sci- 
ence of  government.  This  is  said  with  great  deference 
and  much  veneration  for  many  things  in  the  character 
of  John  Wesley.  He  was  before  his  times;  ours  before 
him." 

We  cannot  tell  whether  we  are  to  regard  the  author 
of  the  "  Georgia  Scenes,"  Judge  Longstreet,  as  entitled 
to  be  ranked  among  "  our  standarrds,"  or  net.  He  is  at 
least  a  Methodist  clergyman,  and  Presid^t  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi College;  and  from  that  lofty  pedestal,  he  ad- 
di'esses  his  Methodist  brethren,  dissuading  them  from 
joining  the  Know  Nothing  or  American  party,  in  the 
following  strains.  Alluding  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley 
to  the  Catholics,  he  says: 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  289 

"  That  letter  was  Trritten  to  show  that  Protestants 
would  not  be  safe  from  oppression  under  Catholic  gov- 
ernment. No  doubt  of  it  in  the  world.  Nor  would 
Catholics  be  safe  under  Methodist  government,  as  your 
plots  against  them,  now,  most  clearly  demonstrate.  The 
truth  is,  no  religious  sect  is  to  be  trusted  with  the  reins 
of  government.  And  if  I  were  to  take  the  stump  against 
you,  I  would  say  to  the  honest  yeomanry  of  the  coun- 
try: Good  people  if  you  think  that  your  liberties  will 
be  any  safer  in  the  hands  of  Methodists  than  Catholics, 
you  are  vastly  mistaken.  And  in  proof  of  this  assertion, 
I  would  point  to  the  outrages  of  the  Methodist  major ity  in 
1844,  which  sj)Ut  our  Church.  I  would  add  in  humilia- 
tion, but  in  candor:  You  "liave  ten  thousand  times  more 
to  fear,  just  at  this  time,  from  Afethodists  than  Catholics; 
simpl}'  because  the  first  are  more  numerous  than  the 
last;  because  the  first  are  actually  in  the  field  for  office, 
while  the  last  arc  not;  because  the  first  are  in  open  war 
upon  the  last;  and  because  the  first,  by  reason  of  their 
numbers,  are  pets  of  the  strongest  political  combination 
that  ever  was  formed  in  this  country— secret  and  oath- 
bound  at  that.  Suppose  their  religion  does  spread,  with 
the  unexampled  rapidity  with  wliich  yours  has,  who  has 
a  right  to  object  ?  Will  you  forbid  men  to  choose  their 
own  religion  ?  In  all  the  essentials  of  Christianity,  do 
they  not  agree  with  yont  Wesley  thought  so,  and  I 
think  so.  Do  they  differ  from  you  wider  in  faith  than 
your  Unitarian  coufedci'ates?" 

As  Brother  Ilamill  has  already  declared  his  readiness 
to  receive  and  recognize  Roman  Catholic  bai)tism,  nay, 
that^  he  would  even  administer  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  the  members  of  that  apostate  Church; 
and  as  Judge  Longstreet,  in  the  foregoing  extract,  asks: 
"/«  all  the  essentials  of  Christianity,  do  not  they  («'.  e.  the 
Catholics)  AGREE  with  you?"  (Methodists)  and  answers: 
"Wesley  xnouGHT  so,  and  I  tliiuk  sol"  We  arc  led  to 
25 


290  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

conclude  that   Episcopacy  is   substantially  the   same, 
whether  in  its  Roman,  English,  or  American  form. 

As  we  have  not  pried  into  the  leaves  of  the  "Index 
Expurf/atorius"  of  American  Episcopacy,  we  do  not 
know  whether  the  "Life  and  Writings  of  Lorenzo  Dow" 
have  yet  been  put  under  ban.  And  in  the  absence  of 
this  intelligence,  the  reader  will  excuse  us  if  we  take 
his  deposition.  Speaking  of  the  power  of  a  bishop  to 
send  the  "  travelling  clergy"  whithersoever  he  will,  and 
of  the  general  polity  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  he  says: 

"  Did  the  pope  ever  have  unlimited  power,  without  the 
voice  of  any  other  person,  to  command  six  hundred  men, 
and  send  them  when  and  where  he  pleased,  because  it 
was  his  will  and  pleasure  to  have  it  so?  '  to  say  to  one, 
go,  and  he  goeth,  and  to  another,  come,  and  he  cometh, 
and  to  this  man,  do  this,  and  he  doeth  it?' 

I  know  not  where  it  is  recorded  in  history,  that  the 
pope  did  command  six  hundred  men,  in  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  clerical  capacity,  to  send  them  here  and  there, 
because  it  was  his  will  and  pleasure  so  to  have  it,  and 
that  over  the  country,  near  two  thousand  miles,  one  way, 
and  fifteen  hundred,  the  other. 

How  much  less  is  the  power  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States?  How  much  greater  the  privilege  of  the 
citizens,  to  have  a  voice  by  their  representatives  in  the 
formation  of  those  rules  by  which  they  are  to  be  go- 
verned; and  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  to 
remark  on  the  rules  and  conduct  of  those  who  form  the 
rules,  and  their  mode  of  governing. 

The  mode  of  governing  in  the  old  world,  contains 
those  restrictions,  as  the  result  and  dregs  of  the  old 
feudal  system;  and  wherever  this  mode  exists,  the  prin- 
ciple must  be  the  same;  of  which  the  unlimited,  and  in 
many  cases,  the  undefined  power  of  the  bishop,  and  pre- 
siding elder  is  a  specimen,  which  some  have  seen  and 
severely  felt." — Wrilings  of  Rev.  L.  Doiv,  p.  545. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  291 

Again:  On  page  550,  be  says:  "The  Methodist  mode 
of  Church  government  is  the  most  arbitrary  and  despotic  of 
any  in  Ameriui,  except  the  Shakers,"  &c. 

We  make  the  following  quotation  from  one  of  the 
most  popular  writers  in  England,  of  the  present  day — 
a  gentleman,  by  the  way,  whom  no  man  can  suspect  of 
being  unfriendly  to  Methodism: 

"  Nothing  in  the  compass  of  literature  can  be  at  once 
more  sharply  logical,  or  more  thoroughly  unphilosophi- 
cal  than  are  Wesley's  reasonings  in  support  of  mixiste- 
RiAL  ABSOM'TisM,  and  in  enforcing  the  dut}'  of  topular  sub- 
mssiVE.VEss.  With  a  heart  that  would  have  grieved  to 
injure  any  man  in  the  smallest  matter,  he  upheld  a  Church 
theory,  on  ike  ground  of  which  HERETICS  IX  TROOPS 
MIGHT  CONSISTENTLY  BE  BURIED."— Wedeyan 
Methodism,  by  Isaac  Taylor,  p.  257. 

We  make  our  last  extract  from  a  pamphlet,  fresh  from 
the  press,  entitled  "  Siricliores  on  Church  Government,  by 
Rev,  R.  Abbey,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  published  by  E.  Ste- 
venson and  F.  A.  Owen,  Agents  for  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  1855."  We  suppose  that  the  im- 
primatur of  the  "Book  Concern"  would  not  be  placed  to 
a  libel  upon  "our  Episcopacy."  Let  us,  then,  take  the 
deposition  of  "the  Rev.  R.  Abbey."    He  says: 

"Republicanism  is  equality  with  regard  to  government. 
But  wlicn  a  class  or  order  of  persons  comes  in  with  rights 
or  privileges  or  duties  over  and  above  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  community;  when  you  have  a  privileged 
dans  [tlie  italics  are  his]  in  whom  some  governmental 
rights  inhere,  of  course,  in  so  far  as  this  principle  ob- 
tains, be  it  much  or  little,  it  innovates  the  principle  of 
pure  Kepublicanis-m.  Republicanism  knows  no  class  or 
order  with  inherent  privileges. 


292  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Now,  what  is  the  name  of  that  ingredient  in  Church 
government  which  inheres  in  the  ministry  as  a  clas  dis- 
tinct from  laymen?  Th^only  name  which  lexicograph- 
ers and  scientific  writers  on  government  give  to  this 
principle,  is  ARISTOCRACY.  Then  a  Christian  Church 
must  be,  in  part  at  least,  aristocratic.  If  any  man  does 
not  like  that  term,  I  cannot  help  it.  If  he  does  not 
know  its  meaning,  I  advise  him  to  consult  a  dictionary. 
If  the  terra  offends  his  ear,  then  his  ear  is  either  mal- 
formed or  mal-educated.  Nothing  can  offend  a  healthy 
ear  but  an  idea.     A  word  cannot." — p.  11. 

Taking  the  reverend  gentleman's  advice,  we  turn  to 
the  Dictionary,  and  find  the  following: 

Aristocracy,  n.  1.  A  form  of  government  in  which  the 
whole  supreme  power  is  vested  in  the  principal  persons 
of  the  State,  or  in  a  privileged  order.  2.  The  nobility, 
or  chief  persons  in  a  State." —  Wehsier. 

We  certainly  admire  the  candor  of  this  writer,  in  call- 
ing things  by  their  right  names.  Wo  rather  guess  that 
the  American  "  ear"  has  been  too  thoroughly  "malformecF 
or  ^^ mal-educated'^  under  the  influence  of  our  happy  com- 
monwealth, ever  to  appreciate  the  peculiar  harmony  of 
that  sound.  We  advise  the  reader  to  make  the  experi- 
ment, say  the  next  Fourth  of  July.  Let  him,  while  his 
fellow-citizens  are  celebrating  that  auspicious  day  with 
bonfires  and  illuminations,  repeat  "  aristocracy,  aristo- 
cracy" a  few  dozen  times,  and  see  whether  it  will  suit 
the  metre  of  the  "  star-spangled  banner."  If  he  cannot 
"  makb  it  go,"  let  him  forthwith  call  on  some  "  circuit 
rider,"  or  "  presiding  elder,"  to  "  raise  the  tune."  And 
if  the  music  still  grates,  we  advise  him  to  call  at  once  on 
some  of  the  "  doctors"  of  "  our  Episcopacy" — and  they  are 
neither  few  nor  far  between — and  submit  to  an  auricular 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  293 

operation.  Then  shall  the  "divine  right"  of  this  " iniv- 
ileged  class'' — this  "  aristocraey" — melt  upon  his  tympanum 
as  sweetly  as  the  strains  of  the  harp  of  ^^olus.  At  least, 
if  it  does  not,  "  I  cannot  help  it,"  says  Mr.  Abbey — nor 
can  we.  We  can  only  advise;  and  if  this  "  mal-formcd 
or  mal-educated "  "  ear"  is  so  dull  that  it  vrill  not  hear 
oxir  advice,  our  skirts  are  clear.  It  will  be  seen  that 
Mr.  Abbey  agrees  Avith  Mr.  Johnson,  in  pronouncing  the 
Methodist  Church  g;overunient  "  an  aristocracyj-'  .        , 

As  to  the  clause  in  the  resolution  transferring  "  all 
the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
meeting  houses,  parsonages,  &c.,  &c.,  to  the  contingent 
"  Southern  organization,"  which  declares  said  resolution 
binding  "  so  far  as"  it  "  can  be  of  force  in  the  premises  "  we 
answer  that  it  did  have  *'  force  in  the  premises,"  because 
this  property  is  now  owned  by  the  Church,  South,  in 
virtue  of  the  passage  of  that  resolution.  Originally,  all  this 
property  was  deeded  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  in  1844,  that  Church  relinquished  its  title  to  it  in 
favor  of  another  organization  known  as  the  "  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,"  provided  such  an  organization 
should  be  established;  and  this  latter  organization  now 
holds  that  property,  we  repeat,  iu  virtue  of  that  relin- 
quishment. 

But  there  were  sundry  "  protests  "  filed  to  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  tliis  suit  was  decided.  The  "  Louisville 
Conference"  protested,  "Mr.  Elliott  and  others"  pro- 
tested! This  all  sounds  very  well;  but  what  did  it 
amount  to?  Nothing  —  absolutely  nothing  I  If  tlie 
Northern  division  had  refused  to  relinqnish  its  claim 
upon,  and  the  Southern  division  had  refused  to  accept, 


294  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

the  dividend,  on  the  humiliating  terms  on  which  it  was 
made,  tJuit  would  have  been  a  sensible  "protest."  No, 
Brother  Hamill:  Your  Church,  South,  gained  the  suit; 
but  with  it  "  our  Episcopacy"  gained  an  authentic  ex- 
position, which  has  been  placed  upon  the  judicial 
records  of  the  country,  and  which  ten  thousand  protests 
can  never  erase.  We  do  not  wonder  at  your  zeal  and 
ingenuity  in  attempting  to  ward  off  the  odium  which  that 
decision  fastens  upon  j^our  ecclesiastical  escutcheon. 
Like  the  blood  of  the  murdered  Duncan,  on  the  fair  hand 
of  the  Scottish  queen,  "  all  the  perfumes  of  Arabia  never 
can  sweeten  it."  Your  Episcopacy  may  well  exclaim,  as 
did  an  English  nobleman  when  he  received  the  news  of 
the  battle  of  Bunker's  Hill,  ^'Another  such  a  victory,  and 
ive  are  ruined!" 

Brother  Hamill  admits  that  the  General  Conference 
could  have  "  become  Sociniau,"  "  Presbyterian  or  Bap- 
tist" in  "  government  and  doctrine,"  if  it  had  "  chosen 
to  do  so,"  as  Mr.  Lord  alleged;  but  then  he  says,  "there 
is  another  covM  and  another  would,  too,  behind  all  this 
matter— that  is,  the  Anrmal  Conferences  could  have  taken 
every  one  of  the  delegates  on  their  return  home,  and 
tried  and  expelled  them,  and  they  would  most  certainly 
have  done  it  too."  Very  well.  It  seems,  then,  that  the 
Churches  could  not  and  ivould  not  have  dared  to  do  it. 
So  that  here  is  another  aspect  of  Episcopacy — the  pro- 
cess of  "trying  and  expelling" — in  which  it  "  admits 
no  constituents — and  has  no  constituents."  Whether  a 
body  of  men,  (the  clergy,)  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a 
General  Conference,  would  act  the  reverse  in  a  State 
Conference,    involves  a   draft   upon   human   credulity, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  295 

rather  too  heavy  to  be  honored.  In  point  of  sovereign- 
ty, which  takes  precedence,  the  General  or  the  State 
Conferences?  To  ask  this  question  is  to  answer  it. 
Apropos,  we  will  liere  introduce  another  extract  from 
the  opinion  of  the  court.  Judge  Xelsox  says:  "These 
travelling  preachers  represented  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  government,  and  were  responsible  to  no  earthly 
tribunal  for  the  mode  and  manner  of  its  exercise.  *  *  * 
As  they  might  have  constructed  any  number  of  separate" 
*  and  distinct  organizations  in  their  first  fraternal  associ- 
ation and  effort  in  the  fulfilment  of  this  mission,  accord- 
ingly as  it  might  seem  to  them  best,  so  was  it  equally 
in  their  power  at  any  subsequent  period  of  their  labors. 
The  power  remained  unchanged.*' — Ajjpendix  to  Frop. 
Case,  p.  12.  -  .-      - 

But  the  conclusions  to  which  our  brother  arrives  up- 
on the  first  part  of  his  article,  merit  a  moment's  atten- 
tion. He  considers.  First:  That  the  Book  Concern  is  a 
"  holy  charity."  This  we  have  not  debated,  nor  is  it  in- 
volved in  the  issue  between  us.  He  might  just  as  well 
have  represented  us  as  saying,  that  the  prcacliing  of 
the  gospel  by  Methodist  ministers  was  anti-Kepublican 
because  of  their  arbitrary  appointments  to  their  stations 
by  the  bishops.  But  his  second  conclusion  is  decidedly 
original.  He  says,  "  The  principles  in  its  (the  Property 
Case)  adjudication  demonstrate  that  in  all  grand  as  well 
as  minor  movements  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
the  laity  exercise  an  allraniirolling  injljicnce /"  And  he  ar- 
rives at  this  conclusion,  too,  after  admitting  in  so  many 
words,  that  eo  far  as  the  "  Property  Case "  was  con- 
cerned, the  pleadings  of  the  lawyers  and  the  decision  of 
the  court,  wliich  we  liad  quoted,  were  true,  to  wit:  That 


296  ^  DISCUSSION  ON 

they  "admit  no  constituents,  and  have  no  constituents!" 
Nay,  he  enters  into  an  elaborate  argument  to  prove, 
that  the  laity  ought  not  to  have  any  sort  of  control  over 
that  "holy  charity." — And  yet  its  "adjudication  demon- 
strates [yes,  demonstrates!]  ....  that  the  laity  exercise 
an  all-controlling  infliiencc ! !"     We  have  seen  some  speci- 
mens of  logic  in  which  a  may  be  in  the  premises  became 
a  must  he  in  the  conclusion;  but  we  never  before  saw  it 
■"  demoustrated"  how  a  cypher  in  the  premises  became  an 
"  all-conti-ollmg  "  numerical  quantity  in  the  conclusion."  , 
It  will  do  to  place  in  "Barnum's  Museum"  beside  Bishop 
Taylor's  grand  discovery  of  "truth  without   evidence.^' 
Speaking  of  Pedo-baptism,  that  astute  divine  says:  "I 
think  there  is  so  much  to  be  pretended  against  it  (Pedo- 
baptism)  which  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  that  there  is 
much  more  truth  than  evidence  on  our  side!"    So  it  seems 
that   the   Bishop's  discovery  is   likely  to  serve  "our 
Episcopacy"  a  very  clever  turn.     Nor  less  remarkable 
is  his  third  conclusion,  to  wit:  "That  the  government 
of  Methodism,  in  all  respects  in  which  the  Bible  gives 
scope  for  hu7nan  legislation,  is  modelled  as  Mr.  Choate 
says,  after  our  secidar  union."     That  is  to  say,  after  a 
lengthy  review  of  a  law  suit,  in  which  the  whole  polity 
of  Episcopal   Methodism   was  in  evidence  before  the 
court,  and  in  which  it  was  decided  that  "  the  laymen  of 
the  Church  have  no  part  or  connection  with  its  govern- 
mental  organization,    and   never   had — that   they    (the 
preachers)  comprise  the  embodiment  of  its  power,  eccle- 
siastical and  temporal — that  when  assembled  in  General 
Conference  according  to  the  usages  and  discipline  of 
the  Church,  they  represent  themselves,  and  have  no  con- 
stituents,'^—om  brother  comes  to  the  sage  conclusion 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  29Y 

that  "  the  government  of  Methodism  ....  is  modelled 
after  our  secular  union!!"  But  comment  upon  this  con- 
clusion would  be  paying-  the  understanding  of  the  reader 
rather  an  equivocal  compliment.  We  may  safely  leave 
this  to  the  capacity  of  those  who  are  competent  to  de- 
cide which  was  baptized,  Philip  or  the  eunuch.  How 
far  "  the  Bible  gives  scope  for  human  legislation,"  is  a 
desideratum  which  Episcopacy  ought  to  define.  It 
would  be  interesting  to  know  how  fai-,  and  in  what  par- 
ticulars, the  Divine  Law  may  be  amended  by  the  inter- 
position of  '^  human  legislation.'^ 
The  sum  of  our  answer  is  this: 

I.  Our  review  of  the  "Church  Property  Case"  has 
been  palpably  misconstrued.  Brother  Hamill  makes  us 
affirm  that  of  the  object  for  which  the  Book  and  Chartered 
Fund  was  raised,  which  we  affirmed  of  the  principles  on 
which  the  Court  ordered  it  to  be  divided  between  the 
KOrth  and  the  South. 

II.  Bro.  Hamill  derives  his  testimony  from  the  icrovg 
source.  He  relies  mostly  upon  Mr.  Choate,  the  counsel 
for  the  defendants,  (the  Northern  division  of  the  Church) 
who  lost  the  suit.  We  derived  ours  from  Messrs.  Lord, 
Johnson,  and  the  Court — the  party  loho  gained  the  suit. 
Our  testimony  is  taken  from  the  accredited  judicial  records 
of  the  coitutnj.  That  is  to  say,  he  quotes  his  exposition 
of  Episcopacy  from  the  counsel  whose  arguments  were  de- 
clared sop/cistical  by  the  Court,  and  were  therefore  overruled; 
we  quoted  from  the  counsel  whose  argiiments  were  substan- 
tially adapted  by  the  Court  as  its  decision. 

III.  Our  antagonist  maintains  tliat  the  principles 
which  decided  that  suft,  were  false  in  their  application 
to  all  other  matters   of  Church  polity,  but  true   in  tlieir 


298  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

application  to  the  Book  Concern  Fund.  We  have  prov- 
ed, from  tJie  decision  of  the.  Court,  that  these  principles 
pervade  the  entire  governmental  economy  of  Methodist 
Episcopacy. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

The  "miscellaneous"  items  in  his  article  scarcely  need 
a  response.  Mr.  Wesley  is  the  father  of  American  Me- 
thodists; indeed  the  Methodist  ministry  did  not  presume 
to  organize  their  Church  until  he  granted  them  the  privilege. 
Hence,  we  thought  it  perfectly  legitimate  to  quote  from 
his  writings.  The  "  madmen  of  Munster,"  as  they  have 
been  called,  sustain  no  such  relation  to  Baptists,  and  never 
did.  They  were  composed,  as  we  have  proved,  of  Ca- 
tholics, Lutherans,  Baptists,  and  "  the  larger  portion," 
says  Buck,  "  having  no  religious  principles." 

It  is  far  easier  to  class  us  with  Campbellites,  is  it  n"ot, 
Bro.  Hamill,  than  to  answer  our  argument  on  the  sub- 
ject of  "  creeds?"  We  still  maintain  that  "  human  creeds 
may,  as  mere  matters  of  convenience,  make  pretty  good 
servants,  but  most  intolerable  masters." 

It  seems,  then,  that  "  inveighing  against  the  doctrine 
of  our  Church"  is  not  a  crime  of  sufficient  magnitude  to 
exclude  one  from  the  communion  table  of  the  Metliodist 
Episcopal  Church,  although,  if  persisted  in,  it  is  a  suffi- 
cient ground  of  exclusion  from  the  Church.  The  Me- 
thodist Church  is,  therefore,  more  sacred  than  the  table 
of  the  Lord! — since  the  man  who  would  be  excluded 
from  the  one  would  be  admitted  to  the  other — ^"  immoral 
conduct"  being  the  only  ground  of  exclusion  from  the 
latter. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  299 

As  to  the  error  of  Avbieli  our  brother  supposes  he  has 
convicted  us,  we  have  only  to  say,  that  if  we  erred,  the 
Book  of  Discipline  is  responsible.  In  answer  to  the 
question:  "  What  shall  be  the  business  of  the  quarterly 
ConferQuce?''  the  answer  is:  "To  hear  complaints,  and 
to  receive  and  try  appeals."  And  since  the  "fifth  re- 
strictive rule"  guaranties  to  the  members  the  privilege 
"  of  trial  before  the  Society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of 
an  apjjeal"  we  reallj^ supposed  that  the  tribunal  to  which 
the  appeal  was  made,  was  competent  to  redress  the 
wrong.  And  we  really  supposed  that  when  Mr.  Hard- 
ing appealed  to  the  General  Conference,  in  1844,  he  did 
it  in  the  hope  of  being  reinstated.  Now,  suppose  the 
Quarterly  Conference  restores  a  private  member  after 
his  exclusion,  what  relation  does  he  sustain  to  the 
Church?  Our  statement  was  substantially  true,  that 
the  Quarterly'-,  Annual,  and  General  Conferences  could 
try,  suspend,  or  expel  members — if  ministers  are  mem- 
bers. The  jurisdiction  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  is 
confined  to  private  members  and  local  preachers — that 
of  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences,  to  the  travelling 
clergy.  As  these  two  latter  bodies  "admit  no  constitu- 
ents," of  couEge  they  cannot  permit  such  small  matters 
to  come  up  before  their  august  deliberations. 

But  our  brother  says  that  «•&,  the  pastor  of  a  Baptist 
Church,  have  more  power  in  the  trial  of  a  member,  than 
he,  the  pastor  of  a  Methodist  Church.  Now,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  following  ([ucstion  and  answer,  in  the 
Discipline,  page  55,  last  edition: 

Qv£sl.  1.  What  arc  the  duties  of  the  elder,  deacon,  or 
preacher,  who  has  the  special  charge  of  a  circuit  or 
station? 


300  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Ans.  5.  To  receive,  try,  and  expel  members,  according 
to  the  forn>  of  the  Discipline.* 

We  humbly  submit,  that  if  we  were  to  undertake  this 
summary  process  in  the  Church  in  Tuskegee,  about  the 
first  expulsion  would  be  the  pastor. 

"  The  sad  anarchy  and  confusion,  called  Baptist  Church 
government,''  to  which  our  brother  has  so  often  referred, 
is,  it  seems,  the  argumentum  ad  homimm,  since  it  proves, 
that  if  our  government  is  Republican,  his  is  more  sol 
It  is  well  that  our  brother  added  "tastes  will  difier." 
We  propose  giving  an  illustration  of  this,  for  his  spe- 
cial edification.  The  following  anecdote  is  as  well  au- 
thenticated as  any  which  has  descended  to  us  from  the 
illustrious  statesman  and  patriot  to  whom  it  refers.  It 
was  originally  communicated  to  the  "  Christian  Watch- 
man," several  years  ago,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fishback,  of 
Lexington,  Ky.  We  extract  it  from  Dr.  Reynolds' 
"Church  Polity,"  page  227: 

"Mr.  Editor:  The  following  circumstance  which  occur- 
red in  the  State  of  Virginia,  relative  to  Mr.  Jefl'erson,  was 
detailed  to  me  by  Elder  Andrew  Tribble,  about  six  years 
ago,  who  since  died,  when  ninety-two  or  three  years  old. 
The  facts  may  interest  some  of  your  readers.  Andrew 
Tribble  was  the  pastor  of  a  small  Baptist  Church,  which 
held  its  monthly  meetings  at  a  short  distance  from  Mr. 
Jefierson's  house,  eight  or  ten  years  before  the  American 
Revolution.  Mr.  JetiFerson  attended  the  meetings  of  the 
Church  for  several  months  in  succession,  and,  after  one 
of  them  asked  Elder  Tribble  to  go  home  and  dine  with 
him,  with  which  he  complied. 

Mr.  Tribble  asked  Mr.  Jefferson  how  he  was  pleased 
with  their  Church  government.     Mr.  Jefferson  replied, 

*  See  Appendix  F. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  301 

that  it  had  struck  him  with  great  force,  and  had  inter- 
ested him  much;  that  he  considered  it  the  only  form  of  pure 
Democracy  that  then  existed  in  the  world,  and  had  conclud- 
ed that  it  would  be  the  best  plan  of  government  for  the 
American  Colonies.  Tiiis  was  several  years  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  To  what  extent  this  prac- 
tical exhibition  of  religious  liberty  and  equality  operat- 
ed on  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind,  in  forming  his  views  and 
principles  of  religious  and  civil  freedom,  which  were  so 
ably  exhibited,  1  will  not  say." 


THE  CONTRAST. 

We  shall  dispose  of  what  Brother  Hamill  says  in  re- 
gard to  our  article  entitled  "The  Contrast,"  as  briefly 
as  possible.  We  have  already  examined  the  positions 
assumed  by  Mr.  Choate,  which  Bi'o.  Hamill  so  frequent- 
ly quotes  in  this  part  of  his  article,  and  have  proved 
from  the  decision  of  the  Court  that  they  were  untenable; 
and  hence,  if  there  be  any  credit  due  that  decision,  they 
are  to  be  "  ruled  out"  of  this  discussion.  And  whether 
the  very  modest  pledge  he  has  given,  "  that  that  'Con- 
trast^ SHALL  BE  numbered  with  the  things  that  arc  'twice 
dead  and  plucked  up  by  the  roots,'"  will  be  seen  in  the 
sequel. 

First:  We  have  permitted  Mr.  Choate  to  state  what 
he  meajit  by  the  declaration  quoted  on  the  first  point 
himself.  But  it  is  maintained  that  the  preachers  who 
composed  the  Conference  of  1784,  were  elected  to  the 
ministry  by  the  votes  of  the  people!  And  this  made 
tViem  the  representatives  of  the  people  for  life,  in  every 
position  they  might  choose  to  fill  1  If  a  Methodist  So- 
ciety recommends  a  young  man  to  Conference,  as  pos- 
26 


302  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

sessing  gifts  and  qualifications  for  the  ministry  of  the 
gospel,  and  the  Conference  accepts  him,  and  he  is  by 
the  action  of  that  Conference,  (for  they,  not  the  Society, 
are  the  ultimate  tribunal  to  decide  who  shall  be  receiv- 
ed into  their  fraternity,)  recognized  for  life,  as  a  mem- 
ber ex  officio,  of  their  body,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 
this  is  equivalent  to  the  frequent  periodical  elections  of 
our  representatives  to  our  National  and  State  legisla- 
tures ! !  But  the  kimbo  arms,  the  arch  smile,  and  askance 
gaze  of  the  reader,  which,  being  interpreted,  means — 
"you  don't  say  so?" — relieves  us  of  the  necessity  of  any 
further  exposure  of  this  draft  upon  his  credulity. 

Secondly:  It  is  alleged  in  answer  to  the  second  point 
of  our  "Contrast,"  that  the  act  of  joining  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  a  voluntary  adoption  of  its  govern- 
ment. And  so  when  an  American  citizen  voluntarily 
expatriates  himself,  and  emigrates  to  Russia,  he  volun- 
tarily adopts  that  form  of  government.  But  does  this 
act  of  his  make  him  a  party  to  the  original  formation  of 
the  Russian  governthent?  And  does  it  transform  that 
Autocracy  into  a  Republic?  Yet  this  is  the  argument 
of  our  brother.  Furthermore:  Congress  is  governed  by 
a  written  Constitution,  adopted  by  a  power  supei'ior  to 
it — THE  TEOPLE — whcrcas  the  General  Conference  of  tra- 
velling preachers  is  governed  by  a  constitution  adopted 
by  themselves,  and  they  recognize  no  superior  pqwer  to 
themselves.  Hence  the  fallacy  of  his  argument  in  com- 
paring a  Conference  with  our  National  Congress. 

Thirdly:  The  division  of  the  Church  in  1844,  was  an 
"essential  change  in  its  constitution,"  as  much  so  as  if 
they  had  destroyed  its  Episcopal  element.  And  yet  this 
"essential  change"  was  not  submitted  to  the  action  of 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  303 

a  single  society  of  laymen  in  the  Union.  The  bishops 
and  travelling  preachers  decided  the  fate  of  that  mea- 
sure, from  its  alpha  to  its  omega.  The  unity  of  a  "  Ge- 
neral Conference  jurisdiction,"  was  no  more  nor  less 
"intact"  before  the  separation,  than  "all  other  depart- 
ments of  the  Church."  This  we  have  proved  from  the 
judicial  records  of  the  country,  bej'ond  all  cavil. 

Fourthly:  Judges  of  the  United  States  Court  are  nom- 
inated by  the  President,  who  is  elected  every  four  years 
by  the  popular  suffrage,  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate, 
whose  members  are  elected  every  six  years.  But  why 
has' he  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Judges  and  the  army 
and  naval  officers  of  the  United  States?  Do  they  make 
the  laws  which  govern  this  confederacy?  Why  did  he 
not  appeal  to  our  Legislative  Assemblies — the  law-mak- 
ing powers  of  our  State  and  National  Government? — 
Echo  answers,  why? 

Fifthly:  We  will  let  the  Discipline  answer  our  bro- 
ther's argumeut  on  our  fifth  point.  "  Who  shall  attend 
the  Annual  Conference?  Ans.  All  the  travelling  preach- 
ers who  are  in  full  connection,  and  those  who  are  to  be 
received  into  full  connection." — Discipline,  pp.  39-40. 
"  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  &c.  Ans. 
1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one 
member  for  every  fourteen  members  of  each  Annual 
Conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority  or  choice, 
at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual  Conference,"  «&c.  That 
is,  "  the  travelling  preachers  comprise  the  embodiment 
of  its  power,  ecclesiastical  and  temporal,"  as  the  Court 
affirmed:  "Not  a  modicum  of  power  was  left  elsewhere," 
says  Johnson.  And  yet  the  State  and  General  Conl'er- 
etices,  composed  of  the  travelling  preachers  and  their  re- 


304  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

presentatives,  are  wonderful [y  analogous  to  our  Nation- 
al Congress,  whose  members  are  chosen  by  the  people  and 
their  representatives!  There  is  another  thing  that  must 
be  "  numbered  among  those  which  are  '  twice  dead,  and 
plucked  up  by  the  roots,' "  before  this  can  be  swallowed 
• — the  covimon  sense  of  mankind. 

Sixthly:  And  is  there  any  analogy  between  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  chosen  for  six  years,  and  respon- 
sible to  "  a  constituency,"  and  one  recognized  and  ap- 
pointed by  their  peers  for  life,  and  which  "admits  no 
constituents,"  and  is  "  responsible  only  to  themselves?" 
The  Southern  Baptist  Convention  is  not  a  legislative 
body.  It  is  a  merely  voluntary  assemblage — and  each 
State  may  send  as  many  and  as  few  delegates  to  it  as 
it  chooses.  They  do  not  pretend  to  interfere  with 
Church  polity,  and  therefore  cannot  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  the  Churches. 

Our  seventh,  eleventh,  and  fifteenth  points  are  identi- 
cal with  our  fifth,  says  Brother  Hamill,  and  he  refers  us 
to  his  answer  to  that  for  his  answer  to  these.  Let  us 
see:  In  our  fifth  item,  we  alluded  to  the  manner  of  elect- 
ing the  members  of  our  State  and  National  legislatures. 
In  our  seventh,  we  alleged  that  the  members  so  chosen, 
represented  and  were  responsible  to  "  a  constituency," 
in  contradistinction  to  Methodist  Conferences,  which 
"  had  no  constituents."  In  our  eleventh,  we  showed  the 
combination  of  the  Democratic  and  Republican  elements 
in  our  civil  government,  both  of  which  were  wanting  in 
"  our  Episcopacy."  And  in  our  fifteenth,  we  referred  to 
the  effort  made  by  sundry  memorialists,  in  1824  and 
1828,  to  make  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  govern- 
ment REPRESENTATIVE,  by  wliich  it  couldhavc  been  some- 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  305 

what  assimilated  to  the  form  of  a  free  government;  but 
that  the  dignitaries  of  that  Church  rebuked  the  memo- 
riah'sts  in  as  oflfensive  terms  as  ever  fell  fron>  the  lips  of 
a  despot:  "  Pardon  us  if  we  know  no  such  rights,  if  we 
comprehend  no  such  privileges."  Whethe?  these  seve- 
ral points  are  identical,  and  whether  they  arc  "  twice 
dead,  and  plucked  up  by  the  roots,"  may  be  safely  refer- 
red to  the  judicious  reader. 

Eighthly:  We  supposed  Bishop  Hamline  spoke  ex 
officio,  when  he  said  that  the  will  of  the  bishop,  presiding 
elder,  or  circuit  rider,  "was  omnipotent  in  the  premises" 
— that  "  there  was  no  tribunal  to  cure  his  errors  or  rec- 
tify his  wrongs,"  and  that  the  aggrieved  party  "  must 
submit."  We  will,  therefore,  station  ex-Bishop  Ilam- 
line  to  guard  that  tree  from  the  ruthless  hand  of  our 
brother.  We  rather  surmise  that  the  ex-bishop  will 
give  him  a  little  trouble  before  he  succeeds  in  "  pluck- 
ing it  up  by  the  roots." 

Ninthly:  We  may  imitate  the  example  of  Bro.  Hamill, 
and  refer  the  reader  to  our  answer  to  his  strictures  on 
our  first  point,  for  an  answer  to  this,  begging  only  to 
introduce  the  following  extract  from  an  article  which 
appeared  in  the  "Philadelphia  Church  Advocate,"  an 
able  Methodist  organ,  and  which  is  from  the  pen  of  a 
distinguished  Methodist  writer.  "In  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  no  one,  except  the  travelling  preach- 
ers, has  any  rights.  All  that  the  local  preachers,  ex- 
hortcrs,  class-leaders,  and  private  members  possess,  are 
mere  privileges,  for  which  they  arc  indebted  to  the  sove- 
reign will  and  pleasure  of  their  '  Divine  Rights,'  rulers." 

Tcnthly:  Did  the  memorialists,  in  1S24  and  1828, 
simply  ask  the  privilege  of  "  scattering  their  preachers 


306  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

to  the  four  winds?"  Let  the  seventy-five  thousand  Pro- 
testant Methodists  of  the  United  States  answer. 

Twelfthly:  We  are  not  aware  that  "  protests "  can 
change  facts.  We  can  well  conceive  how  "leading 
men  in  the^Church,  North,"  should  "protest"  against 
the  decision  of  the  court,  for  they  lost  nearly  half  a 
million  of  dollars  by  it.  But  that  the  party  who  gained 
the  suit,  should  "protest"  against  the  principles  on 
which  it  was  decided,  and  upon  which  alone  it  could 
have  been  determined  in  their  favor,  and  yet  accept  the 
dividend,  would  place  "  our  Episcopacy"  in  a  humiliat- 
ing attitude  which  would  disarm  contempt. 

Thirteenthly:  All  the  "standards"  of  "our  Episco- 
pacy" uniformly  refer  to  John  Wesley  as  the  sole  founder 
of  Methodism  in  Europe  and  America.  See  section  first 
of  the  Discipline.  We  also  refer  the  reader  to  that  part 
of  this  article,  in  which  we  have  shown  in  what  respects 
the  Convention  that  formed  our  Federal  Constitution, 
was  analogous  to  the  Conference  that  formed  the  "Book 
of  Discipline,"  as  alleged  by  Mr.  Choate,  to  wit:  That 
the  bodies  of  each  did  their  work  and  then  disappeared. 

Fourteenthly:  ■  Bishop  Bascom  shall  vindicate  this 
point  for  us.  In  his  "  Declaration  of  Rights,"  drawn  up 
during  the  agitation  of  the  "  representative  "  question 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  he  says:  "  A  gov- 
ernment uniting  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
powers  in  the  same,  men,  is  an  absurdity  in  theory,  and 
in  practice,  tyranny.  The  executive  power,  in  every 
government,  should  be  subordinate  to  the  legislative, 
and  the  judicial  independent  of  both.  Whenever,  there- 
fore, it  happens  that  these  three  departments  of  govern- 
ment are  in  the  hands  of  the  same  body  of  men,  and 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  301 

these  men  not  the  representatives  of  the  people,  first 
making-  the  laws,  then  executing'  them,  and,  finally,  the 
sole  judges  of  their  own  acts,  there  is  no  liberty,  the 
people  are  virtually  enslaved,  and  liable  to  be  ruined 
at  any  time."     Art.  6th. 

Sixteenthly:  We  asserted  in  this  item  that  all  the 
powers,  in  the  g-overnmental  economy  of  Methodism, 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy.  And  if  we  have  not 
succeeded  in  proving-  this,  we  should  despair  of  proving 
that  the  three  angles  of  a  triangle  are  equal  to  two  right 
angles.  "  The  bishop  appoints  the  minister,"  say's  a  Me- 
thodist writer,  over  twenty  years  ag'o,  and  we  presume 
it  is  the  same' now;  "  the  minister  appoints  the  class- 
leader  and  stewards;  these  appoint  the  sexton,  whO;  in 
his  turn,  appoints  the  grave-digger.  So  that,  from  him 
who  soars  aloft,  and  overlooks  God's  heritage,  down  to 
him  who  delves  in  the  earth,  and  buries  the  bodies  of 
the  saints,  all  derive  their  power  from  the  ministry,  and 
all  are  responsible  to  them  only,  for  their  proceedings." 
Quoted  in  the  Iron  Wheel,  p.  313. 

Our  seventeenth  item  needs  no  defence.  Every  deed 
to  Meeting  houses,  &c.,  &c.,  is  taken  in  the  name  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Discipline,  p.  209. 
Every  trustee  is  originall3'  appointed  by  the  preacher 
in  charge,  or  presiding  elder,  and  must  be  a  member  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Discipline,  p.  218. 
Every  vacancy  by  death  or  otherwise,  in  the  boards,  is 
to  be  filled  by  the  nominee  of  the  "  stationed  minister 
or  preacher."  Idem.  When  these  facts  are  denied,  we 
will  publish  the  "form  of  a  deed"  laid  down  in  the 
Discipline. 

lias  Brother  Ilamill  succeeded,  reader,  in  killiiif;  with 


308  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

a  double  death,  these  "trees  of"  w?i-"rigliteousness"  in 
the  Methodist  •vineyard,  according  to  his  modest  boast? 
Now,  we  frankly  confess  that,  if  we  had  planted  them 
there,  it  would  be  a  bare  question  of  relative  power  be- 
tween him  and  ourself  as  to  whether  they  should  remain. 
But  as  they  were  planted  there  by  the  "fathers"  of  "our 
Episcopacy,"  it  materially  changes  the  parties  to  the 
contest.  We  hope  he  will  succeed  ultimately  in  "pluck- 
ing them  up  by  the  roots,"  and  "  casting  them  into  the 
fire."  The  travelling-  clergy  of  the  whole  United  States 
have  them  under  special  guardianship;  and  not  until 
our  brother  shall  associate  with  himself  a  power  which 
the  laity  of  his  Church  only  can  supply,  will  he  be  able 
to  root  up  this  noxious  growth. 

But  to  drop  the  figure,  we  maintain  that  every  one 
of  our  seventeen  points  is  sustained  by  evidence  which 
is  incontestible.  Every  fact  which  they  respectively 
involve,  we  have  pi'oved,  either  from  the  "standards" 
of  Methodism,  or  from  the  judicial  records  of  the  coun- 
try. We  are  only  responsible  for  grouping  them  to- 
gether in  the  form  in  which  they  are  there  presented. 
Brother  Hamill  does  not  deny  a  single  fact  there  pre- 
S3nted.  He  only  excepts  to  the  principles  on  which 
"the  Property  Case"  was  decided;  and  in  this,  he  be- 
comes the  antagonist  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States,  AND  NOT  ours;  and  in  this  position  we  leave  him, 
so  far  as  his  effort  at  "  killing  "  and  "  plucking  up  "  is 
concerned. 

A  word  in  regard  to  this  allusion  to  Baptist  Church 
government.  He  premises  his  strictures  upon  our 
"contrast"  by  saying,  that  "The  Bible  contains  all  the 
doctrines  and  essential   principles  of  discipline  which 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  309 

govern  gospel  Churches."  Then  how  is  it,  that  those 
who  adopt  the  Bible  as  their  constitution — their  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice, — are  i-epresented  by  hira,  as 
adopting  a  "  system  of  sad  anarchy  and  confusion,  call- 
ed Baptist  Church  goTcrnment,"— as  possessing  "  a  dis- 
jointed scheme,  yclept  Baptist  Church  government?" 
Was  the  very  form  of  government  adopted  by  the  Apos- 
tolic Churches,  a  "disjointed  system"  of  "anarchy  and 
confusion?"  Verilj',  it  requires  no  little  temerity  to  as- 
sert this.  But  if  not;  if  the  Apostolic  Churches  really 
had  something  whteh  could  be  accurately  called  Church 
government,  and  a  denomination  of  Christians  in  this 
day  adopt  it  as  theirs,  by  what  system  of  logic  can  it  be 
proved  now  to  be  a  "  system  of  anarchy  and  confusion?" 
Or  is  it  impossible  for  Baptists  to  understand  as  plain 
a  book  as  the  New  Testament?  This  will  not  be  pre- 
tended; and  we  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  form  of  go- 
vernment adopted  by  Christ  himself,  and  his  Apostles 
who  wrote  as  moved  upon  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  far 
preferable,  to  that  despotic  "  scheme  yclept"  Method- 
ist Episcopacj',  adopted  under  a  special  dispensation 
from  John  Wesley,  by  sixty  travelling  preachers,  in 
1784. 


We  arc  glad  that  our  brother  has  signified  his  wil- 
lingness, heartily  to  co-operate  with  us  in  publishing  in 
book  form,  this  discussion.  We  hereby  agree  to  furnish 
one-half  of  the  expense  necessary  for  the  publication  of 
say  four  thousand  copies,  more  or  less,  so  soon  as  Bro. 
Hamill  or  his  brethren  shall  furnish  the  other  half.  We 
suppose  it  will  be  as  readily  bought  by  Methodists  as 


310  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

Baptists;  and  if  so,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  dispos- 
ing of  four  thousand  copies  in  six  months  after  it  is 
printed.  At  least  we  are  willing  to  take  two  thousand 
copies,  and  become  responsible  for  their  sale,  so  far  as 
the  Baptists  are  concerned;  and  we  have  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  Brother  Hamill  will  do  the  same  in  behalf  of 
his  brethren.  In  the  event  that  an  equitable  arrange- 
ment can  be  consummated  between  us,  in  regard  to  its 
joint  publication,  we  will  cheerfully  agree  to  leave  out 
our  articles  now  in  course  of  preparation,  on  "  Church 
Government;"  albeit,  we  cannot  see  what  very  great 
harm  it  would  do  our  Methodist  brethren  to  read  them. 
We  heartily  reciprocate  all  the  kind  terms  in  which 
our  brother  holds  us.  We  can  say  most  seriously  that 
we  have  not  "  set  down  aught  in  malice."  We  have  spo- 
ken plainly,  but  kindly,  as  becomes  all  who  profess  god- 
liness. And  whether  "our  Episcopacy"  shall  prove  in 
the  issue  to  be  a  transplant  from  Jerusalem  or  Babylon; 
whether  it  shall  prove  to  be  an  offshoot  of  the  tree  of 
liberty,  or  the  green  ivy  which  mistaken  hands  have 
planted  at  its  root,  and  which  is  ultimately  to  enfold  and 
crush  within  its  deadly  embrace  that  majestic  tree,  we 
can  but  wish  the  highest  degree  of  temporal  and  spirit- 
ual prosperity  to  our  worthy  antagonist  in  this  dis- 
cussion. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  311 


LETTER  FROM  MESSRS.  CLOPTON,  BILBRO,  AND 
MAYES. 

Rev.  Samuel  Henderson: 

Dear  Brother, — At  the  close  of  the  communication  con- 
cluding on  your  part,  the  discussion  between  yourself 
and  our  pastor,  Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill,  you  address  to  the 
undersigned  a  respectful  communication,  to  which  we 
feel  it  is  our  duty  to  reply.  In  consequence  of  the 
republication  in  your  columns,  of  an  article  from  the 
Western  Watchman,  reflecting  directly  upon  the  econ- 
omy of  the  Methodist  Church,  not  in  a  religious,  but  in 
a  political  point  of  view,  and  thus,  indirectly,  upon  the 
patriotism  of  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Church,  we 
felt  that  self-respect,  as  well  as  attachment  to  the 
Church  of  our  choice,  called  upon  us  to  ask  at  your 
hands  admission  into  your  colums,  of  a  defense  pre- 
pared by  the  pastor  of  our  Church,  against  the  malign- 
ant aspersions  cast  upon  ^lethodism,  by  the  anonymous 
author  of  the  article  in  question.  It  was  not  the  inten- 
tion of  our  pastor  to  have  carried  the  matter  beyond 
that  exj^ose  of  the  principles  of  the  Methodist  Church 
government  to  which  our  names  were  appended,  had 
you  not  seen  proper,  a  right  we  by  no  means  question, 
to  enter  the  arena  and  contend  that  the  Methodist 
Church  government  was  anti-Republican.  In  this  as- 
pect of  things,  we  had  a  right  to  expect  from  our  pastor, 
and  were  convinced  of  his  abiliiy  to  prepare,  a  defense 


312  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

of  our  Church  economy.  We  have  read  the  discussion 
with  interest,  and  were  much  gratified  with  the  ability 
and  christian  kindness  with  which  it  was  conducted. 
We  are  pleased  to  bear  testimony  to  the  fact  that  in 
our  opinion  it  will  tend  to  draw  more  closely,  and  not 
to  sever,  the  bond  of  christian  union,  which  should  exist 
between  the  two  Churches.  We  congratulate  both 
parties  to  this  debate  upon  this  happy  result  of  the 
discussion;  and  we  greatly  desire  to  see  it  published 
in  book  form,  that  it  may  do  good  more  extensively,  by 
a  wider  circulation  in  both  Churches.  We  will  cheer- 
fully enter  into  any  arrangements  which  can  be  made, 
to  secure  its  publication  and  promote  its  increased  cir- 
culation. 

We  are  indebted  to  you  for  the  courtesies  extended 
to  our  pastor,  and  for  the  kind  regards  you  have  ex- 
pressed for  him  and  for  ourselves. 

Eespectfully  yours, 

DAVID  CLOPTON, 
JOHN  B.  BILBRO, 
ROBT.  L.  MAYES. 
Tushgee,  Ala.,  Nov.  2,  1855. 


ANSWER. 

The  foregoing  communication  was  handed  in  last 
week,  but  owing  to  the  great  length  of  the  closing  ar- 
ticles of  the  discussion,  it  was  crowded  out.  It  is  in 
response  to  a  note  we  addressed  to  the  gentlemen  whose 
names  are  signed  to  it,  some  two  months  since,  at  what 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  313 

we  then  supposed,  from  the  long-  silence  of  Bro.  Hamill, 
was  the  end  of  the  discussion  between  us.  And  let  us 
here  say  to  our  Methodist  brethren,  that  we  never  have, 
and  God  forbid  that  we  ever  should,  seek  to  deprive  any 
man  or  set  of  men,  the  right  to  adopt  any  form  of 
Church  government  they  please.  But  when  such  form 
is  adopted  by  them — there  is  a  co-relative  rig-ht  belong- 
ing to  others — and  that  is  the  right  to  discuss  its  prin- 
ciples. But  the  abstract  right  to  adopt  Episcopacy,  or 
to  live  under  an  Episcopal  government,  is  one  thing, 
and  the  right  to  call  such  a  government  a  Democratic 
Republic,  is  quite  a  different  thing.  When,  therefore, 
we  chose  to  exercise  a  "  right  which"  you  "  by  no  means 
question,"  to  investigate  the  claims  of  your  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity  to  Republicanism,  we  did  so  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  showing  that  a  government  by  the  clergy  was 
not  a  government  by  the  people;  that  whatever  civil 
rights  and  privileges  were  guarantied  to  the  laity  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by  our  free  government 
— Episcopacy  "knew  no- such  rights  and  comprehended 
no  such  privileges."  And  we  do  honestly  maintain,  that 
so  long  as  Methodists  uphold  their  present  governmental 
organization,  so  long  do  they  practically  and  theoreti- 
cally repudiate,  in  their  ecclesiastical  capacity,  the  spi- 
rit and  genius  of  American  Democracy.  And  if  their 
worth}'  pastor  has  succeeded  in  proving  to  their  satis- 
faction, tliat  their  "Church  economy,"  every  department 
of  which  is  administered  by  the  clergy — which  "has  no 
constituents" — which  refuses  to  place  grave  questions 
"at  the  feet  of  a  Democracy" — which  is  "  absolutely  an 
aristocracy" — is,  nevertheless,  quite  Democratic  and 
Republican — all  we  have  to  say  is,  they  arc  far  more 
27 


314  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

easily  satisfied  with  religious  than  with  civil  polity. 
We  suppose  if  we  should  undertake  to  prove  to  them, 
that  a  political  compact,  organized  upon  the  identical 
principles  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  was  quite  homoge- 
neous with  our  free  institutions,  they  might,  indeed,  con- 
cede that  we  were  honest  at  heart,  but  certainly  not  a 
very  safe  expounder  of  Democracy  and  Republicanism. 
For  example,  suppose  our  revolutionary  war  had  proved 
a  failure,  and  the  colonies  had  been  reduced  to  a  state 
of  servitude  again  to  the  British  Crown,  w^ould  any  ra- 
tional man  ever  have  suspicioned  Episcopal  Methodism 
as  possessing  the  first  element  either  of  Democracy  or 
Republicanism?  With  what  exultation  and  pride  would 
they,  in  such  an  event,  have  pointed  to  the  part  which 
their  illustrious  founder,  John  Wesley,  and  his  first  mis- 
sionaries to  this  country,  took  in  that  memorable  strug- 
gle, in  denouncing  our  forefathers  as  rebels,  and  affirm- 
ing that  they  had  no  just  cause  to  take  up  arms  against 
their  sovereign!  Indeed,  their  preachers  at  least  might 
have  secured  as  high  a  commendation  from  George  III. 
as  the  Baptists  did  from  George  Washington. 

For  the  kind  terms  in  which  these  brethren  speak, 
both  of  the  ability  and  spirit  of  the  discussion,  we  are 
much  obliged.  They  live  in  the  immediate  community 
in  which  it  has  occurred — have  read  it  all — and  are 
therefore  prepared  to  speak  understandingly.  But  how 
different  has  it  been  viewed  by  some  of  the  accredited 
organs  of  their  Church  1  By  these  we  have  been  alter- 
nately denounced  during  its  progress,  as  being  guilty 
of  "the  lowest  piece  of  religious  demagogueism  which 
has  yet  transpired"— as  "  a  legitimate  child  of  the  father 
of  lies"— as  "  ignorant  of  the  subject"  we  were  discussing 


METHODIST   EPISCOPACY.  315 

— as  "  accuser  of  the  brethren" — as  uttering'  "  self-evi- 
dently  malicious  misrepresentations,"  &c.  &c.  Now, 
these  brethren  declare  in  their  communication:  "We 
have  read  the  discussion  with  interest,  and  were  much 
gratified  with  the  ability  and  Christian  kindness  with 
which  it  was  conducted."  In  this  instance,  at  least,  we 
must  invert  the  sentiment  of  the  poet,  and  say: 

"  'Tis  distance  lends"  repulsion  "  to  the  view !" 

Being  desirous,  when  the  discussion  first  opened,  that 
"  it  might  do  good  more  extensively  by  a  wider  circula- 
tion in  both  Churches,"  than  our  paper  could  give  it,  we 
requested  Bro.  Hamill  to  secure  its  publication  in  some 
one  of  the  "Advocates,"  as  an  act  of  reciprocal  courtesy, 
and  we  are  quite  sorry  that  he  failed  in  the  effort.  This 
desire  has  not  abated  in  the  slightest  degree;  and  we 
are  ready  to  negotiate  any  equitable  arrangement,  by 
which  its  "  increased  circulation"  may  be  promoted. 

We  assure  these  brethren,  that  the  courtesy  wc  have 
extended  to  their  pastor  has  been  quite  cordial  from 
first  to  last;  a  courtesy,  by  the  way,  which  wc  never 
have  known  extended  to  a  Baptist  by  any  one  of  the 
"  Advocates."  But  a  few  weeks  since,  a  violent  assault 
was  made  upon  Dr.  Baker,  a  Baptist  minister  of  Georgia, 
in  the  columns  of  the  "Nashville  Christian  Advocate," 
by  a  Mr.  Mills,  a  Methodist  clergyman,  to  which  Dr. 
Baker  made  a  respectful  reply,  asking  the  editor  of  that 
paper  to  insert  it,  and  this  act  of  justice  was  denied  him! 
Even  while  we  write,  we  observe  a  similar  instance  of 
injnstico  on  the  part  of  the  "Texas  Christian  Advocate." 
The  treatment  wc  have  received  at  the  hands  of  these 


316  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

"  Advocates"  is  too  well  known  to  our  readers,  to  be 
more  than  alluded  to  here.  We  know  of  no  political 
editor  in  the  Union,  whose  policy  is  governed  by  such 
a  code  of  morals.  The  surveillance  of  a  "star  chamber," 
or  a  French  ''  Emperor,"  was  never  more  rigid  and  pre- 
scriptive than  that  which  keeps  watch  and  ward  over 
the  columns  of  these  journals,  and  assumes  to  denounce 
every  attempt  to  expose  the  polity  of  their  denomina- 
tion, not  agreeable  to  them,  as  impertinent  and  unchar- 
itable. With  this,  however,  we  have  nothing  to  do — 
only  to  pursue  a  course  exactly  the  reverse  of  theirs. 
Indeed,  we  wish  no  better  evidence  that  we  are  right 
than  this.  Our  convictions  of  duty  and  justice  are  pre- 
scribed in  a  "  book  of  discipline"  which,  so  far  from  hold- 
ing the  penalty  of  exclusion  in  terrorem  over  us  for  "  in- 
veighing against  the  doctrines  and  discipline"  of  any  de- 
nomination, which  we  believe  unfounded  in  the  Word  of 
God,  commands  us  to  "  prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast 
to  that  which  is  good."  Hence  "  the  courtesies  extend- 
ed" to  their  pastor,  and  "  the  kind  regards"  we  have  ex- 
pressed for  them  individually,  is  the  result,  not  so  much 
of  personal  esteem  (although  we  are  not  wanting  in 
this)  as  of  Christian  principle — and  we  claim  no  thanks 
for  either. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  317 


LETTER  YII. 

THE  DISCUSSION. 

Three  errors  of  fact;  Their  correction  requested. 

Brother  Henderson: 

There  are  several  grave  errors  of  fact,  not  of  opinion, 
in  your  last  article.  As  that  article  closes  the  discus- 
sion, I  do  not  offer  you  a  reply;  but  simply  state  the 
errors  in  question,  with  the  conviction  that  you  will  do 
us  justice,  in  the  points  specified. 

First  error  of  fact:  In  your  examination  of  my  review 
of  the  contrast,  under  the  third  head,  you  say  of  the  di- 
vision of  the  Church  in  1844,  "  Tiiis  essential  change  in 
the  constitution  of  .the  Church,  was  not  submitted  to 
the  action  of  a  single  society  of  laymen  in  the  Union." 

Now,  it  is  unaccountable  to  me,  how  you  could  have 
fallen  into  this  error,  upon  a  fact  of  such  vital  import- 
ance to  the  question  under  discussion.  I  had  repeatedly 
called  your  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  laity  oT  the 
entire  South,  demanded  the  division.  I  had  quoted  Mr. 
Fancher's  remark,  "  That  the  most  excited  meetings 
soon  occurred  in  all  parts  of  the  South,  and  the  most 
indignant  resolutions  were  passed."  I  had  referred  to 
the  fact,  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Curry,  a  distinguished  minis- 


318  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

ter  of  the  Georgia  Conference,  was  required  to  vacate 
his  charge  of  the  Columbus  Church,  by  the  members,  on 
account  of  his  opposition  to  the  action  of  that  Church, 
on  the  question  of  the  division;  and,  moreover,  the  re- 
port of  the  Church  Property  Case  abounds  with  such 
testimony.  For  example,  in  an  "Address  to  the  minis- 
ters and  members  of  the  slave-holding  States,"  drawn 
up  before  they  left  New  York,  by  the  very  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1 844,  who  proposed  the  plan 
of  separation;  thej  say,  "  The  plan  does  not  decide  that 
division  shall  take  place;  but  simply,  and  it  is  thought 
securely,  provides  that  it  may,  if  it  be  found  necessary. 
Of  this  necessit}^,  you  (the  ministers  a7id  members)  are 
to  be  the  judges." 

Again,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  South  Carolina  Con- 
ference, p.  113,  it  is  said:  "Resolutions  to  that  effect 
(namely,  the  division  of  the  Church)  have  been  adopted 
by  the  Quarterly  Conferences  of  all  the  circuits  and 
stations  without  any  exception,  and  in  many,  perhaps 
in  most  of  them,  by  otlier  meetings  also,  which  have 
been  called  expressly  for  the  purpose;  and  in  some  of 
them,  by  meetings  held  at  every  preaching  place  where  there 
was  a  society.  In  the  whole  field  of  our  Conference  dis- 
trict, one  individual  only  has  been  heard  to  express 
himself  doubtfully  as  to  the  expediency  of  a  separate 
jurisdiction." 

Again,  in  the  address  to  the  Louisville  Convention  of 
the  Methodist  Ciiurch,  South,  which  sums  up  the  action 
of  our  entire  Conferences,  and  membership,  it  is  declared, 
"  It  was  found  that  both  as  to  the  members  of  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  and  the  local  viinistry  and  membership  of 
oxir  entire  territory,  the  declaration  had  been  sustained, 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  319 

and  a  separate  org-anization  called  for,  by  as  groat  a  ma- 
jority as  ninety-five  to  five — that  the  number  dissenting 
should  have  been  so  small,  compared  to  the  number  of 
those  who  hate  required  us  to  act,  is  to  our  minds  conclus- 
ive proof  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  action." 
Church  Property  Case,  p.  121.  Of  the  truth  of  the  fact, 
that  the  laity  did  take  action  upon  the  question  of  the 
division  of  the  Church,  there  are  living  witnesses  by  thous- 
ands. 

You  surely  could  not  have  read  the  entire  report  of 
the  Church  Property  Case.  Had  you  read  these  ex- 
tracts from  it,  which  I  now  quote,  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  you  to  have  fallen  into  so  great  an  error, 
upon  so  fundamental  a  point.  Of  course,  this  correc- 
tion of  your  error  should  materially  chang'c  your  opin- 
ion of  Methodism. 

Second  error  of  fact:  "You  say  the  preachers  and 
elders  appoint  all  the  class-leaders,  stewards,  and  trus- 
tees who  hold  Church  property — and  preachers  remove 
at  their  pleasure  their  appointees."  You  are  rig-ht  with 
regard  to  the  appointment  and  removal  of  class-leaders, 
though  this  discretionary  power  of  the  preacher  is  held 
under  strict  accountability;  but  you  are  wrong  about 
trustees,  and  stewards.  A  new  board  of  trustees  may 
be  appointed  by  preachers,  where  the  laws  allow  it; 
but  old  boards  of  trustees  fill  their  own  vacancies  by 
election,  and  trustees  and  stewards  are  accountable  to 
the  Quarterly  Conferences  only,  and  cannot  be  removed 
by  either  the  preacher  or  the  presiding  elder. 

Third  error  of  fact:  You  quote  Isaac  Taylor  as  one, 
whom  "no  man  can  su.'^pect  of  being  unfriendly  to  Me- 
thodism."     Hear  the  Methodist  (Quarterly  lieview,  of 


320  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

July,  1853,  of  his  work:  "  On  almost  every  page  under 
an  ill-disguised  affectation  of  candor,  his  secret  enmity 
may  be  discovered.  This  is  a  sufficient  exposure  of  the 
hypocritical  enmity  with  which  he  praises  the  heart  of 
Wesley,  as  incapable  of  injuring  any  man  in  the  small- 
est matter,  while  he  charges  him  with  upholding  a 
Church  theory,  on  the  ground  of  which  heretics  in  troops 
might  consistently  be  burned." 

Your  own  sense  of  honor,  and  of  justice,  will  dictate 
to  you  the  propriety  of  correcting  these  errors  of  fact. 
I  am  as  ever,  your  brother  in  Christ, 

E.  J.  HAMILL. 

P.  S.  The  Fourth  Quarterly  Conference  of  the  Oak 
Bowery  circuit.  Chambers  county,  passed  resolutions 
unanimously  recommending  the  publication  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

Signed,  Jonathan  Waee,  Sec'y. 

The  Fourth  Quarterly  Confere^e  of  the  Tuskegee 
circuit,  of  which  the  Rev.  Wm.  B.  Neal  is  pastor,  passed 
similar  resolutions  recommending  the  publication  of  the 
discussion. 

Signed,  P.  B.  Appleby,  Sec'y. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  321 


REPLY  TO  LETTER  TIL 

Misapprehension  of  argument;  Tlie  '•  first  error  of  fact"  may  be  cor- 
rected when  the  "  standards"  are  mended,  and  the  judicial  records 
of  the  country  rectiOed;  Second  "  en'or  of  fact;"  Third  "  error  of 
fact;"  The  ''  seventh  Monder;"  Mutual  call  for  the  publication  of 
the  discussion  by  Baptists  and  Methodists. 

We  very  cheerfully  insert  the  foregoing  communica- 
tion from  our  worthy  antagonist  in  the  late  discussion 
on  Episcopal  Methodism.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  persist 
in  "  errors  of  fact,"  in  reference  to  Episcopacy;  especi"- 
ally  such  "  errors  of  fact"  as  "  should  materially  change 
our  opinion  of  Methodism."  The  reader  will  be  able  to 
judge  how  far  these  "errors"  may  be  legitimately 
charged  to  our  account,  at  the  close  of  this  article. 

In  regard  to  the  "  first  error  of  fact,"  we  think  that  if 
Brother  Ilamill  had  fully  comprehended  the  drift  of  our 
argument  on  the  "  Property  Case,"  it  would  have  "  ma- 
terially changed  his  opinion"  of  the  "error"  in  question. 
In  that  argument,  we  took  it  for  granted,  that  the  prin- 
ciples on  wliich  that  case  was  decided  by  the  learned 
tribunal  to  which  it  was  referred,  were  true  in  their  ap- 
plication to  the  whole  system  of  Methodism.  At  least, 
so  thought  the  Court.  These  principles  were,  as  argued 
by  the  counsel  who  gained  the  suit,  and  as  sustained  by 
the  Court  in  its  decision,  that  the  General  Conference  of 


322  A  DISCUSSION*  ON 

travelling  preachers  "admit  no  constituents" — that 
they  "  have  the  power  to  create  and  to  destroy" — that 
"  not  a  modicum  of  power  is  left  elsewhere " — and,  to 
use  the  very  language  of  the  judges  who  decided  the 
suit,  "  when  they  (these  travelling  preachers)  are  as- 
sembled in  General  Conference,  according  to  the  usages 
and  discipline  of  the  Church,  they  represent  themselves,  and 
have  no  constituents." 

Our  position  is.  That  the  laity  in  the  Methodist  Episco' 
pal  Church,  have,  in  a  governmental  sense,  no  power  whatever. 
And  our  review  of  the  "Property  Case"  was  intended 
to  sustain  this  position.  Now,  the  only  legitimate  mode 
of  proving  that  we  committed  an  error  in  saying  that 
the  division  of  the  Church,  by  the  General  Conference 
in  1844,  "was  not  submitted  to  the  action  of  a  single 
society  of  laymen  in  the  Union,"  is  to  appeal  to  the  ac- 
tion of  that  body,  in  making  that  "  essential  change  in 
its  constitution."  Pursuing  this  course,  we  turn  to  the 
original  resolutions  passed  by  that  body  in  1844,  pro- 
viding for  a  division  of  the  Church.  If  we  had  the  space, 
we  would  publish  the  whole  series;  but  we  have  room 
for  only  the  fourth,  which  covers  the  whole  ground  in 
debate  between  us.     It  is  as  follows: 

"  4th.  That  whenever  the  Annual  Conferences,  by  a 
vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their  members  voting  on  the 
third  resolution,  (which  provided  for  a  "change  of  the 
sixth  restrictive  rule,"  so  as  to  authorize  an  equitable 
division  of  "  the  Book  Concern  and  chartered  Fund,") 
shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommendation  to  alter 
the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  agents  at  New  York 
and  Cincinnati  shall,  and  they  are  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any  authorized  agent  or 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  323 

appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be  author- 
ized, all  notes  and  book  accounts  against  the  ministers, 
Church  members,  or  citizens  within  its  boundaries,  with 
authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the 
Southern  Church,  and  that  said  agents  also  convey  to 
the  aforesaid  agent,  or  appointee,  of  the  South,  all  the 
real  estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including 
papers,  stock,  and  all  right  and  interest  connected  with 
the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston,  Richmond, 
and  Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church." 

Now,  observe  distinctly.  That  the  authority  which  is  to 
give  force  and  eifect  to  those  resolutions — resolutions 
which  contemplate  the  most  "essential  change  "  in  Me- 
thodism which  has  ever  occurred  in  its  history — is,  not  the 
societies  of  laymen  and  local  preachers,  for  they  are  never 
named  in  such  a  connection,  but  the  Annual  Conferences  of 
BISHOPS  AND  TRAVELLING  PREACHERS.  And  this  authority 
is  distinctly  submitted  to  them  in  the  first,  third,  fourth 
and  fifth  resolutions  passed  by  that  body.  They  are  the 
only  constituents  authorized  to  act  in  the  premises.  We  care 
not  if  there  were  five  hundred  or  five  thousand  "  ex- 
cited meetings  held  in  the  South  "  on  that  subject — we 
care  not  bow  many  "  addresses "  were  aubmitted"to 
the  ministers  and  members  of  the  slave-holding  States," 
by  the  members  of  the  Conference  of  1844,  on  their  indi- 
vidual responsibility,  and  after  that  body  adjourned.  The 
(question  is.  Whether  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in 
jmssing  the  resolutions  providing  for  a  division  of  the 
Church,  RECOGNIZED  IN  THE  LAITY  a?t  authority 
competent  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  its  acts  and  doings?  Prove 
this  to  us,  Brother  ITamill,  and  we  will  cheerfully  and 


324  A  DISCUSSION  ON 

candidly  acknowledge,  that  we  committed  an  error  in 
saying  that  "  this  essential  change  was  not  submitted 
to  the  action  of  a  single  society  of  laymen  in  the  Union." 
The  most  careless  reader,  it  seems  to  us,  must  have  un- 
derstood us  to  mean,  in  that  sentence,  that  societies  of 
laymen,  in  the  language  of  the  Court,  "  have  no  part  or 
connection  with  its  governmental  organization,  and 
never  had"^ — that  General  Conferences  do  not  "  submit" 
their  acts  to  the  decision  of  laymen,  in  any  sense  of  that 
term — and  that  in  the  case  to  which  we  referred,  the 
tribunal  which  was  to  give  force  and  effect  to  the  reso- 
lutions was,  NOT  THE  LAITY,  lut  the  biskops  and  travelling 
preachers,  in  their  Annual  Conference  capacity.  The  privi- 
lege of  holding  public  meetings  to  acquiesce  in,  and  submit 
to  the  action  of  their  rulers,  is  one  thing,  and  the  EIGHT 
to  vote  upon  a  vital  question  of  Church  organization,  as 
recognized  constituents,  is  quite  a  different  thing.  We 
think  WG  could  even  appeal  to  Brother  Hamill  to  make 
this  distin'ction. 

Our  brother  thinks,  of  course,  this  correction  of  your 
(our)  error  should  materially  change  your  (our)  opinion 
of  Methodism.  About  as  much,  Bro.  Hamill,  as  the  re- 
cent public  meetings  in  France  and  England,  by  which 
the  loyalty  of  the  people  in  these  nations  was  expressed 
to  their  respective  Sovereigns  for  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  prosecuting  the  war  with  Russia,  would  "change 
our  opinion"  of  monarchy.  Whenever  your  General 
Conference  shall  recognize,  in  the  laity,  a  constituency, 
an  authorized  tribunal  to  "cure  its  errors  and  rectify  its 
wrongs" — whenever  that  body  shall,  in  the  plenitude  of 
its  condescension,  "  place  grave  questions  at  the  feet  of 
a  Democracy"— THAT   will  "materially   change    our 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  325 

opinion  of  Methodism."  But  until  this  is  done,  the 
"excited  meetings,"  "Mr.  Curry,"  "addresses"  from  de- 
legates to  "  General  Conferences,"  and  "  Conventions," 
may  be  multiplied  fourfold — we  must  persist  in  saying, 
that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  submit  the 
resolutions  which  provided  for  a  contingent  division  of 
the  Church,  "  to  the  actioa  of  a  single  society  of  laymen 
in  the  Union,"  to  give  them  effect.  That  body  "knew 
no  such  rights,  and  comprehended  no  such  privileges." 
We  are  sorry,  therefore,  that  we  cannot  accommodate  our 
brother  in  this  matter,  small  as  it  is.  "Retract!"  No; 
not  until  the  "  Book  of  Discipline"  is  mended,  and  the 
judicial  records  of  the  country  are  corrected.* 

The  "  second  error  of  fact"  can  be  disposed  of  quite 
easily.  In  saying  that  the  preachers  and  elders  appoint 
all  the  class-leaders,  stewards,  and  trustees,  who  hold 
Church  property,  we  stated  a  "  substantial  truth,  with 
circumstantial  variations,"  as  our  law  books  would  say. 
The  class-leaders  and  trustees  are  appointed  by  the 
preacher  in  charge;  and  iu  case  of  a  vacancy  by  death, 

•  The  aljovc  con'ection  of  the  first  great  error  of  fact,  I  do  not 
deem  .sufficient — hut  the  facts  are  before  the  public.  I  submit  to 
their  decision. 

E.  J.  HAMILL. 

Wc  regret  tlii.s.  As  our  defence  of  the  position,  involving  what 
is  caUed  "  the  first  great  <  rror  of  fact,"  is  based  upon  evidence  de- 
rived from  official  documents,  emanating  from  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  judicial  records  of  the  country,  we  cannot  believe  that 
the  reader  will  be  as  incredulous  as  our  worthy  opponent.  "Wc, 
therefore,  most  cheerfully  join  in  submitting  the  whole  matter  to 
the  same  enlightened  umpire. 

Editor  S.  W.  B.utist. 
28 


326  A, DISCUSSION  ON 

removal,  or  otherwise,  in  boards  of  trustees,  as  stated 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  article,  the  preacher  nom- 
inates, and  the  board  confirms.  Stewards  are  nominat- 
ed by  the  "  preacher  having  charge  of  the  circuit,"  and 
"  confirmed  or  rejected  by  the  quarterly  Conference." — • 
(Discipline,  p.  218.)  Not  wrong  about  trustees,  Bro. 
Hamill.  "  Old  boards  of  trustees  can  fill  their  own  vacan- 
cies," provided  they  vote  for  the  nominee  of  the  preacher.  See 
Discipline,  p.  218.  The  only  "  error"  we  committed  was 
in  classing  stewards  with  class-leaders  and  trustees;  and 
this  was  not  an  error  if  the  old  legal  maxim  be  true,  qiiid 
facit  per  aliiim,  facit  per  se:  what  a  man  does  through  an- 
other, he  does  himself.  And  besides  all  this,  Bro.  Hamill 
does  not  pretend  that  the  societies  of  laymen  have  any 
hand  in  these  appointments.  And  this  was  the  point  we 
were  establishing  in  making  that  statement. 

The  "  third  error  of  fact"  admits  of  a  still  easier  solu- 
tion. We  did  not  quote  from  Isaac  Taylor,  as  one  of 
the  "  standards"  of  Methodism,  but  as  an  English  writer 
of  accredited  standing  and  ability.  Any  man  who  tvill 
read  the  volume  from  which  we  quoted,  must  be  impress- 
ed with  the  conviction,  that  while  he  totally  disagrees 
with  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  followers,  on  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal polity,  he  nevertheless  held  them  in  high  respect. 
Perhaps  Mr.  Taylor,  like  Judges  Nelson  and  Betts,  and 
all  other  outsiders  who  have  attempted  to  look  into 
the  "mystery .of  Methodism,"  did  not  understand  the  sub- 
ject. "Our  Episcopacy"  must  be  the  "seventh  wonder 
of  the  world,"  as  neither  the  judiciary  of  the  country, 
nor  lawyers,  nor  scholars,  nor  indeed  any  of  the  rest  of 
mankind  who  belong  to  the  uninitiated,  can  understand 
it.     It  seems  there  must  be  something  in  the  system 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY.  321 

which  stultifies  the  intellect  of  every  man  who  undertakes 
to  analj'ze  it.  His  perceptions  may  be  as  clear  as  the 
noon-day's  sun  upon  every  other  question,  but  here,  a 
"horror  of  great  darkness"  instantly  encompasses  him! 
His  reasonings  "may  be  true  in  their  application"  to  all 
other  subjects,  "hut  false  in  their  application"  to  this! 
Now,  really,  we  must  be  pardoned  for  throwing  out  the 
suggestion,  that  the  fruitless  searches  which  have  been 
made  for  the  "Democratic  element"  in  Episcopal  Me- 
thodism, is  not  so  mucli  from  the  ivant  of  sight  to  delect  it, 
as  from  the  want  of  the  material  in  the  system. 

We  are  gratified  that  two  other  "  Quarterly  Confer- 
ences" have  expressed  their  approbation  of  the  discus- 
sion, and  their  desire  for  its  publication.  Between  fif- 
teen and  twenty  Baptist  Associations  in  this  State,  re- 
presenting "  a  constituency"  of  about  forty  thousand, 
have  called  on  us  to  publish  it. 


APPENDII 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


In  my  first  interview  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hamill,  in  regard  to  the 
joint  publication  of  this  volume,  I  claimed  the  privilege  of  insert- 
ing, either  in  the  body  of  the  work,  or  in  the  form  of  an  Appendix, 
those  articles  which  appeared  in  the  N.  0.  Christian  Advocate  and 
the  Texas  Christian  Advocate,  in  which  I  had  been  so  violently  as- 
sailed, together  with  my  replies.  To  this  Mr.  Hamill  objected.  I 
then  informed  him  that  I  should  use  this  privilege  in  my  portion  of 
the  joint  edition.  To  this  he  consented,  provided  I  would  exonerate 
Lim  from  all  agency  in  the  matter.  This,  of  course,  I  agi'eed  to  do. 
And  as  the  entire  responsibility  of  this  Appendix  has  been  thrown 
upon  myself,  I  have  judged  it  to  be  a  privilege  and  a  duty  to  add  a 
number  of  other  articles,  which  will  illustrate  and  confirm  several 
points  involved  in  the  foregoing  discussion,  and  which,  it  is  thought, 
will  add  no  little  to  the  interest  of  the  volume.  The  reader  will, 
therefore,  bear  in  mind  that  I  only  am  responsible  for  this  Appendix. 

SAMUEL  HENDERSON. 
January,  1856.  ♦ 


APPENDIX. 


A. 

MK.  WESLEY'S  "CALM  ADDRESS  TO  OI'R  AMERICAN 
COLONIES." 

In  the  current  histories  of  American  Methodism,  it  is  confidently 
asserted  of  those  Methodist  preachers  who  became  so  offensive  to 
the  patriots  of  our  glorious  Revolution,  by  "  avowing  their  attach- 
ment to  the  British  cause,"  that  they  acted  "  contrary  to  the  advice  of 
Mr.  FfsZf^.— See  "  Gorrieh  Uistory  of  Episcqnl  Methodism,  as  it  wa^, 
and  is,"  Sec.  3,  p.  52.  That  the  reader  may  determine  what 
amount  of  credit  is  due  to  this  statement,  we  propose  presenting  a 
few  extracts  from  Mr.  Wesley's  "  Calm  Address  to  our  American  Colo- 
nies,'^ written  at  the  time  that  our  forefathers  M-ere  hunted  down  like 
wild  beasts  in  the  swamps  and  morasses  of  the  South,  and  marking 
the  ground  with  the  blood  of  their  unshod  feet  in  the  bleak  winters 
of  the  North.  Of  that  sacred  cfluse,  to  maintain  which,  these  noble 
men  "  pledged  to  each  other  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sa- 
cred honor,"  the  father  of  American  Methodism  holds  the  following 
language  : 

"  3.  But  I  object  to  the  very  foundation  of  your  plea  that 
'  every  freeman  is  governed  bylaws  to  which  he  has  consented;' 
as  confidently  as  it  has  been  asserted,  it  is  ahsolutdy  false.  In  wide 
extended  dominions,  a  very  small  part  of  the  people  are  concerned 
in  making  the  laws.  This,  as  all  public  business,  must  be  done  by 
delegation,  the  delegates  are  chosen  by  a  select  number.  And 
those  that  are  not  electors,  who  arc  far  the  greater  part,  stand  by, 
idle  and  and  helpless  spectators.   *♦»*•*•*••• 

"  4.  But  you  say,  you  '  are  entitled  to  life,  liberty,  and  property, 
by  nature  ;  and  that  you  have  never  ceded  to  any  sovereign  power 
the  right  to  dispose  of  these  without  your  conseiit.' 


334  APPENDIX. 

"  Wliile  you  si^oak  as  the  naked  sons  of  nature,  this  is  certainly- 
true  ;  but  you  presently  declare — '  Our  ancestors,  at  the  time  they 
settled  these  Colonies,  were  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  natural  born 
subjects  within  the  realm  of  England.'  This,  likewise,  is  true  ;  but 
when  this  is  granted,  the  boast  of  original  rights  is  at  an  end; 
you  are  no  longer  in  a  state  of  nature,  but  sink  down  to  Colonists, 
governed  by  a  Charter.  If  your  ancestors  were  subjects,  they  ac- 
knowledged a  sovereign  ;  if  they  had  a  right  to  English  privileges, 
they  were  accountable  to  English  laws,  and  had  ceded  to  the  king 
and  parliament,  the  power  of  dis^msing,  uiihmd  their  consent,  of  both  their 
lives,  liberties,  and  properties.  And  did  the  jjarllament  cede  to  them 
a  dispensation  from  the  obedience  which  they  owe  as  natural  sub- 
jects ? — or  any  degree  of  independence  not  enjoyed  by  other  Eng- 
lishmen ?******»***** 

"  6.  But  you  say — '  As  the  Colonies  are  [not  represented  in  the 
British  parliament,  they  are  entitled  to  a  free  power  of  legislation; 
for  they  inherit  all  the  right  which  their  ancestors  had,  of  enjoying 
all  the  privileges  of  Englishmen.' 

"  They  do  inherit  all  the  privileges  which  their  ancestors  had,  but 
they  can  inherit  no  more.  Their  ancestors  left  a  country  Mhere  the 
representatives  of  the  people  were  elected  by  men  particularly  qua- 
lified, and  where  those  who  wanted  tliat  qualification  were  bound 
by  the  decisions  of  men  whom  they  had  not  deputed.  You  are  the 
descendants  of  men  who  either  had  no  votes,  or  resigned  them  by 
emigration.  You  have,  therefore,  exactly  what  your  ancestors  left 
you — uot  a  vote  in  making  laws,  nor  in  choosing  legislators,  but  the 
happiness  of  being  protected  by  laws,  and  the  duty  of  obeying  them. 

"  7.  However,  the  '  Colonies  have  a  right  to  all  the  privileges 
granted  them  by  the  royal  charters,  or  secured  to  them  by  provin- 
cial laws.' 

"  The  first  clause  is  allowed  ;  they  have  certainly  a  right  to  all 
the  privileges  granted  them  by  the  royal  charters.  But  as  to  the 
second,  there  is  a  doubt.  Provincial  laws  may  grant  privileges  to 
individuals  of  the  province,  but  surely  no  province  can  confer  pro- 
vincial privileges  on  itself.  They  have  the  right  to  do  all  which 
the  king  has  given  them,  but  not  to  all  which  they  have  given 
themselves.  *  *  *  *  *  « 


APPENDIX.  335 

"  8.  All  that  impartially  consider  wliat  has  been  observed,  must 
readily  allow,  that  the  English  iMrliamerJ  has  an  undoubted  rifjht  to  tax 
all  the  English  Colonies. 

"  But  whence,  then,  is  all  this  hurry  and  tumult?  Why  is  America 
all  in  an  uproar?"'  Here  the  reverend  politician's onyi  Wesley.  i)ro- 
ceeds  to  give  his  "opinion"  of  the  cause  of  this  "uproar."  He 
alleges  that  '•  a  few  men  in  England,  who  are  determined  enemies 
to  monarchy,"  are  "  seeking  to  erect  their  grand  idol,  their  dear 
commonwealth,  upon  its  ruins!"  So  that  our  noble  revolutionary 
ancestry — Washington,  Franklin,  Jefferson,  Henry,  Madison,  and  all 
their  compatriots,  were  the  mere  dupes  of  "  a  few  men  in  England !" 
and  our  glorious  Republic  is  the  result  of  the  intrigues  of  these  few 
"  artful  men !  "  After  belaboring  them  with  this  insult  to  their 
patriotism  and  integrity,  he  proceeds  : 

"  10.  But,  my  brethren,  would  this  be  any  advantage  to  you  ? 
Can  you  hope  for  a  more  desirable  form  of  government,  citlicr  in 
England  or  America,  than  that  which  you  now  enjoy?  [This  clause 
in  the  "Address"  seems  especially  intended  for  his  own  brethren, 
from  the  emphasis  he  lays  upon  "  you,'"  as  it  is  italicised  by  himself.] 
After  all  the  vehement  cry  for  liberty,  what  more  liberty  can  you 
have  ?  What  more  religious  liberty  can  you  desire,  than  that  which 
you  enjoy  already  ?  May  not  everyone  among  you  worship  God 
according  to  his  own  conscience?  What  civil  liberty  can  you  de- 
sire, which  you  arc  not  already  possessed  of?  Do  not  you  sit  with- 
out restraint,  every  man  under  his  oivn  vine  ?  Do  you  not,  every  one, 
high  or  low,  enjoy  the  fruit  of  your  labor?  This  is  real,  rational 
liberty,  such  as  is  enjoyed  by  Englishmen  alone,  and  not  by  any  other 
people  in  the  habitable  world.  Would  the  being  independent  of 
England  make  you  more  free  ?  Far,  very  far  from  it.  It  would 
hardly  be  possiljle  for  you  to  steer  clear  between  anarchy  and 
tyranny.  But  suppose,  after  numberless  dangers  and  mischiefs,  you 
should  settle  into  one  or  more  Republics,  would  a  Republican  go- 
vernment give  you  more  liberty,  cither  civil  or  religious?  By  no 
means.  NO  GOVERN.MENTS  UNDER  HEAVEN  ARE  SO  DES- 
POTIC AS  THE  REl'L'BLIGAN:    No  subjects  aue  goveuxed  in 

80  AltBlTBAKY  A  MANNER  AS  THOSE  OF  A   COMMOXWEAI.Tlf.       *      *      •      • 

"11.  '  But  if  we  submit  to  one  tax,  more  will  follow.'  Perhaps 
BO,  and  perhaps  not.    But  if  they  did  ;  if  you  wore   taxed  (wiiich  is 


336  APPENDIX. 

quite  improbabk)  equal  with  Ireland  and  Scotland,  still,  were  you 
to  prevent  this  by  renouncing  connection  with  England,  the  remedy 
would  be  u-orse  than  the  disease.  For  oh  !■  what  convulsions  must  poor 
America  feel,  before  any  other  government  was  settled?  Innumer- 
able mischiefs  must  ensue  before  any  general  form  could  be  estab- 
lished. And  the  grand  mischief  would  ensue  when  it  was  establish- 
ed ;  when  you  had  received  a  yoke  which  you  could  not  shake  off. 

"12.  Brethren,  open  your  eyes!  Come  to  yourselves!  Be  no 
longer  the  dupes  of  designing  men.  I  do  not  mean  any  of  your  coun- 
trymen in  America  :  I  doubt  whether  any  of  these  are  in  the  secret. 
The  designing  men,  the  Ahithophels  are  in  England;  those  who  have  laid 
their  scheme  so  deep,  and  covered  it  so  well,  that  thousands  who  are 
ripening  it,  suspect  nothing  at  all  of  the  matter.  These  well  mean- 
ing men,  sincerely  believing  that  they  are  serving  their  country,  ex- 
claim against  grievances  which  either  never  existed,  or  are  exag- 
gerated above  measure,  and  thereby  inflame  the  people  more  and 
more,  to  the  wish  of  those  who  are  behind  the  scene.  But  be  not 
you  duped  any  longer  ;  do  not  ruin  yourselves  for  them  that  owe  you 
no  good  will  ;  that  now  employ  you  for  their  own  purposes,  and  in 
the  end  will  give  you  no  thanks.  They  love  neither  England  nor 
America,  but  play  one  against  the  other,  in  subserviency  to  their 
grand  design  of  overturning  the  English  Gaverament.  Be  warned 
in  time.  Stand  and  consider  before  it  is  too  late — before  you  ha-^ 
entailed  confusion  and  misery  on  your  latest  posterity.  Have  pity 
upon  your  mother  country!  Have  pity  on  your  own  !  Have  pity 
on  yourselves,  upon  your  children,  and  upon  all  that  are  near  and 
dear  to  you !  Let  us  not  bite  and  devour  one  another,  lest  we  be 
consumed  one  of  another.  0,  let  us  follow  after  peace !  Let  us  put 
away  our  sins,  tlie  real  ground  of  all  our  calamities  ! — which  never 
will  or  can  be  thoroughly  removed  till  we  fear  God  and  honor  the 
king."— irorArs  oj  the  Eev.  John  Wesley,  vol.  10,  pp.  131,  132,  133,  134, 
135. 

Now,  what  Mr.  Wesley  was  in  politics,  he  was  also  in  religion  ; 
a  violent  Tory.  (We  use  the  term  in  its  English  sense.)  As  a 
politicia?!,  he  declares,  "  No  governments  under  heaven  are  so  despotic  as  the 
Eepuhlic.'^  As  a  Methodist,  he  affirms,  "  We  are  not  Bepuhlicans,  and 
never  intend  to  be."  And  yet  it  is  the  greatest  pride  and  boast  of 
American  Methodists,  that  they  have  derived  their  chartered  privi- 


APPENDIX.  33t 

leges  from  Joha  Wesley ! — nay,  they  aver  ia  the  first  section  of  their 
"  Discipline,-'  that  their  first  bishop,  Dr.  Coke,  was  "  set  apart" 
"  for  the  Episcopal  office''  by  his  hands — ^his  solemn  protestations  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding! 

It  can  scarcely  be  supposed  that  a  man  who  would  address  our 
Colonies  in  the  foregoing  manner,  would,  at  the  same  time,  liave 
instructed  his  preachers  to  address  them  differently,  or  even  required 
them  to  be  silent.  Far  more  reasonable  is  it  to  suppose,  that  in  de- 
nouncing our  fathers  as  rebels,  and  beseeching  them  to  return  to 
their  allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  they  were  obeying  the  instruc- 
tions of  their  spiritual  father.  "Whether  thoy  did  not  industriously 
circulate  this  "  Calm  Address "  among  their  fioclis,  is  left  to  the 
conjecture  of  tke  reader. 

Finally :  Appended  to  Mr.  "Wesley's  "  Calm  Address,"  are  his 
strictures  on  a  sermon  preached  by  Dr.  Smith,  of  Philadelphia,  in 
which  Dr.  S.  maintained,  that  "  no  power  on  earth  has  a  right  to 
grant  our  property  without  oar  consent.'^  Mr.  "Wesley  says — "  Tea 
times  over,  in  different  words,  you  '  profess  yourselves  to  be  contend- 
ing for  liberty.'  But  it  is  a  vain  empty  profession,  unless  you  mcaa 
by  that  threadbare  word,  a  liberty  from  obeying  your  rightful  sove- 
reign, and  from  keeping  the  fundamental  laws  of  your  country. 
And  this,  undoubtedly,  it  is.  which  the  confederated  Colonies  are 
contending  for." — Ut  supra.,  p.  13C. 


B. 

For  the  double  purpose  of  satisfying  a  very  reasonable  curiosity 
on  the  part  of  the  reader,  and  of  showing  our  Methodist  brethren 
Iww  nearli/  they  all  came  to  he  Ei'Isoopalian.s,  we  will  here  insert  Dr. 
Coke'.s  letter  to  the  "  Rt.  Uiv.  Wu.mam  Wuitk,"  Bishop  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  Philadelphia,  together  with  the  bishop's 
account  of  the  "  private  interview''  between  himself,  Dr.  Coke,  and 
Dr.  Magaw.  As  these  docum-^nts  are  rapidly  floating  down  the 
stream  of  time;  as  they  furnish  an  interesting-chapter  in  the  history 
of  Episcopal  Methodism;  and  as  Methodist  authors  are  likely  to  per- 
mit them  to  reach,  not  posterity,  but  the  cold  sea  of  oblivion,  wc» 
out  of  kludQcsa  at  Ica-st  to  the  present  generation,  have  concluded 


338  APPENDIX. 

to  hook  them  up,  and  rescue  them  from  a  fate  to  which  their  friends 
seem  inclined  to  consign  them.  We  quote  from  the  Rev.  Alexan- 
der McCaine's  "  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,''^  publish- 
ed in  Baltimore,  in  1S27.  Mr.  McCaine  was  a  preacher  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  "  for  upwards  of  thirty 
years." 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  this  letter,  attested  by  Bishop  "White  : 

"  Right  Reverend  Sir: 

"  Permit  me  to  intrude  a  little  on  your  time,  upon  a  subject  of  great 
importance. 

"  You,  I  believe,  are  conscious  that  I  was  brought  up  in  the  Church 
of  England,  and  have  been  ordained  a  presbyter  of  that  Church. 
For  many  years  I  was  prejudiced,  even  I  think,  to  bigotry,  in  favor 
of  it  ;  but  through  a  variety  of  causes  and  incidents,  to  mention 
which,  would  be  tedious,  and  useless,  my  mind  was  exceedingly 
biased  on  the  other  side  of  the  question.  In  consequence  of  this, 
I  am  not  sure  but  I  went  further  in  the  separation  of  our  Church  in 
America,  than  Mr.  Wesley,  from  whom  I  had  received  my  commis- 
sion, did  intend.  He  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me,  as  far  as  he 
had  a  right  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  authority,  but  did  not  intend,  I 
think,  that  our  entire  separation  should  take  place.  He  being  press- 
ed by  our  friends  on  this  side  the  water,  for  ministers  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  to  them  (there  being  very  few  clergy  of  the 
Church  of  England  then  in  the  States)  he  icent  farther,  lam  sure,  than 
he  ivould  have  gone,  if  he  had  foreseen  some  events  ivhich  followed.  And  this 
I  am  certain  of^ — that  he  is  noio  sorry  for  the  separation. 

"  But  what  can  be  done  for  a  re-union,  which  I  wish  for;  and  to  ac- 
complish which,  Mr.  Wesley,  I  have  no  doubt,  would  use  his  influ- 
ence to  the  utmost?  The  affection  of  a  very  considerable  number 
of  the  preachers  and  most  of  the  people,  is  very  strong  towards  him, 
notwithstanding  the  excessive  ill  usage  he  received  from  a  few.  My  interest 
also,  is  not  small;  and  both  his  and  mine  would  readily  and  to  the 
utmost,  be  used  to  accomplish  that  (to  us)  very  desirable  object;  if 
a  readiness  were  shown  by  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  re-unite. 

•'  It  is  even  to  your  Church  an  object  of  great  importance.  We 
have  now  above  60,000  adults  in  our  Society  in  these  States;  and 


APPENDIX.  339 

about  250  travelliag  ministers  and  preachers:  besides  a  great  num- 
ber of  local  preachers,  very  far  exceeding  the  number  of  travelling 
preachers;  and  some  of  these  local  preachers  are  men  of  very  con- 
siderable abilities;  but  if  we  number  the  Methodists  as  most  people 
number  the  members  of  their  Church,  viz. :  by  the  families  which 
constantly  attend  the  divine  ordinances  in  their  places  of  worship, 
they  will  make  a  larger  body  than  you  possibly  conceive.  The  So- 
ciety, I  believe,  may  be  safely  multiplied  by  five  on  an.average,  to 
give  us  our  stated  congregations ;  which  will  then  amount  to 
300,000.  And  if  the  calculation,  which  I  think  some  eminent 
writers  have  made,  be  just,  that  three-fifths  of  mankind  are  un-adult 
(if  I  may  use  the  expression)  at  any  given  period,  it  will  follow  that 
all  the  families,  the  adults  of  which  form  our  congregations  in  these 
States  amount  to  750,000.     About  one-fifth  of  these  are  blacks. 

"  The  work  now  extends  in  length  from  Boston  to  the  south  of 
Georgia;  and  in  brcadtli,  from  the  Atlantic  to  Lalce  Champlain, 
Vermont,  Albany,  Redstone,  Holsteiu,  Kentucky,  Cumberland,  etc. 

"  But  there  are  many  hindrances  in  the  way.  Can  they  be  re- 
moved? 

"  1.  Our  ordained  ministers  will  not,  ought  not,  to  give  up  their 
right  of  administering  the  sacraments.  I  don't  think  that  the  gen- 
erality of  them,  perhaps  none  of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a 
reordination,  if  other  hindrances  were  removed  out  of  the  way.  I 
must  here  observe,  that  between  sixty  and  seventy  only,  out  of  the 
two  hundred  and  fifty,  have  been  ordained  presbyters,  and  about 
sixty  deacons  (only).    The  presbyters  are  the  choicest  of  the  whole. 

"  2.  The  other  preachers  would  hardly  submit  to  re-union,  if  the 
possibility  of  their  rising  up  to  ordination  depended  on  the  present 
bishops  in  America.  Because,  though  they  are  all,  I  think  I  may 
say.  zealous,  pious,  and  very  useful  men,  yet  they  are  not  aciiuaint- 
cd  with  the  learned  languages.  Besides,  they  would  argue,  if  the 
present  bishops  would  waive  the  article  of  the  learned  languages, 
yet  their  successors  might  not. 

"My  desire  of  a  re-union  is  so  sincere  and  earnest,  that  these  dif- 
ficulties make  me  tremble:  and  yd  something  must  be  done  before  the 
death  of  3lr.  Wesley,  otherwise  1  nhall  de»pair  of  success:  for  though  my 
influence  among  the  Methcxlists  in  these  States,  as  well  as  in  Eu- 
rope, is,  I  doubt  not,  increasing,  yet  3Ir.  Asbury,  whose  influence  is  very 


340  APPENDIX. 

cnpilal,  uill  not  easily  comply,  nay,  I  Icnow  he  ivill  le  exceedingly  averse 
to  it. 

"  lu  Europe,  wliere  some  steps  had  been  taken,  tending  to  a  sepa- 
i-atiqn,  all  is  at  an  end.  Mr.  Wesley  is  adetermined  enemy  of  it, 
and  I  have  lately  borne  an  open  and  successful  testimony  against  it. 
"  Shall  I  be  favored  with  a  private  interview  with  you  in  Philadel- 
phia? I  shall  be  there,  God  willing,  on  Tuesday,  the  17th  of  Maf. 
If  this  be  agreeable,  I'll  beg  of  you  just  to  signify  it  in  a  note,  di- 
rected to  me  at  Mr.  Jacob  Baker's,  Merchant,  Market  Street,  Phila- 
delphia: or,  if  you  please,  by  a  few  lines  sent  me  by  the  return  of 
the  post,  at  Philip  Rogers',  Esq.,  in  Baltimore,  from  yourself  or  Dr. 
Magaw:  and  I  will  wait  upon  you  with  my  friend  Dr.  Magaw.  We 
can  then  enlarge  on  the  subjects. 

"I  am  conscious  of  it  that  secresy  is  of  great  importance  in  the  present  state  of 
the  business,  till  the  minds  of  you,  yom*  brother  bishops,  and  Mr. 
Wesley  be  circumstantially  known.  I  must,  therefore,  beg  that 
these  things  be  confined  to  yourself  and  Dr,  Magaw,  till  I  have  the 
honor  of  seeing  you. 

"  Thus,  you  see,  that  I  have  made  a  bold  venture  on  your  honor 
and  candor,  and  have  opened  my  whole  heart  to  you  on  the  subject, 
as  far  as  the  extent  of  a  small  letter  will  allow  me.  If  you  put 
equal  confidence  in  me,  you  will  find  me  candid  and  faithful. 

"  I  have,  notwithstanding,  been  guilty  of  inadvertencies.  Very 
lately  I  found  myself  obliged  (for  the  pacifying  of  my  conscience) 
to  write  a  penitential  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jarrat,  which  gave 
him  great  satisfaction:  and  for  the  same  reason  I  must  MTite  another 
to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pettigrew. 

"  When  I  was  last  in  America,  I  prepared  and  corrected  a  great 
variety  of  things  for  our  magazine,  indeed,  almost  everything  that 
was  printed,  except  some  loose  hints  which  I  had  taken  of  one  of 
my  journeys,  and  which  I  left  in  my  huriy  with  Mr.  Asbury,  with- 
out any  correction,  entreating  him  that  no  part  of  them  might  be 
printed  which  could  be  improper  or  offensive.  But  through  great 
inadvertency  (I  suppose)  he  suffered  some  reflections  on  the  charac- 
ters of  the  two  above  mentioned  gentlemen  to  be  inserted  in  the 
magazine,  for  which  I  am  very  ^orry  :  and  probably  shall  not  rest 
till  I  have  made  my  acknowledgments  more  public;  though  Mr. 
Jarrat  does  not  desire  it. 


APPENDIX.  341 

"  I  am  not  sure,  whether  I  have  not  also  offended  you,  sir,  by  ac- 
cepting one  of  the  offers  made  me  by  you  and  Dr.  Magaw,  of  the 
use  of  your  Churches,  about  six  years  ago,  on  my  first  visit  to  Phil- 
adelphia, without  informing  you  of  our  plan  of  separation  from  the 
Church  of  England.  If  I  did  offend,  (as  I  doubt  I  did,  especially  from 
what  you  said  to  Mr.  E.  Dallam,  of  Abingdon,)  I  sincerely  beg  your 
and  Dr.  Magaw's  pardon.  I'll  endeavor  to  amend.  But  alas!  I  am 
a  frail,  weak  creature. 

••  I  will  intrude  no  longer  at  present.  One  thing  only  I  will  claim 
from  your  candor — that  if  you  have  no  thought  of  improving  this 
proposal,  you  will  burn  this  letter,  and  take  no  more  notice  of  it, 
(for  it  would  be  a  pity  to  have  us  entirely  alienated  from  each  other, 
if  we  cannot  unite  in  the  manner  my  ardent  wishes  desire)  but  if 
you  will  further  negotiate  the  business,  I  will  explain  my  mind  still 
more  fully  to  you  on  the  probabilities  of  success. 

"  In  the  mean  time,  permit  me,  with  great  respect,  to  subscribe 
myself,  Right  Rev.  Sii-,  your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 

(Signed)  THOMAS  COKE. 

The  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God, 
Bishop  "WuiTi:. 

Richmond,  April  2Uh,  1791. 

"  P,  S. — You  must  excuse  interlineations,  &c.  I  am  just  going  in- 
to the  country,  and  have  no  time  to  tranf:crlbe." 

"  The  doctor  having,  in  this  letter,  proposed  '  a  private  interview' 
with  Bishop  White,  '  if  agreeable,'  waited  on  him  upon  his  arrival 
at  Philadelphia.  The  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  the  bishop 
to  one  of  his  friends,  contains  the  substance  of  the  conversation 
which  passed  at  the  time  between  himself.  Dr.  Magaw,  and  Dr. 
Coke." 

^■Philadelphia,  Jul;/  ZOth,  1804. 
'•■  Reverend  Sir: 

"  In  the  spring  of  the  year,  1791, 1 recei\cd  a  letter  from  Dr.  Coke, 
on  the  subject  of  uniting  the  Methodist  Society  with  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  An  ansv\-cr  was  returned.  In  consequence  of 
which.  Dr.  Coke,  on  his  coming  to  town,  made  nic  a  visit,  having  not 
then  received  my  letter,  but  having  heard  that  I  had  written.  Our 
conversation  turned  ciiiefly  on  the  aforesaid  subject.  The  general 
30 


342  APPENDIX. 

outlines  of  Dr.  Coke's  plan  were,  a  re-ordinatioii  of  the  Methodist 
ministers,  and  their  continuing  under  the  superintendence  then  ex- 
isting, and  on  the  practices  of  their  peculiar  institutions.  There 
was  also  suggested  by  him,  a  propriety,  but  not  a  condition  made,  of 
ADMITTING  TO  THE  EPISCOPACY,  HIMSELF  AND  THE 
GENTLEMAN  ASSOCIATED  WITH  HIM  in  the  superintendence 
of  the  Methodist  Societies.  This  intercourse  was  communicated  at 
the  time  from  Dr.  Coke  to  Dr.  Magaw.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other 
person  then  informed  of  it,  unless  I  may  except  the  gentleman  above 
alluded  to,  by  whom,  if  I  have  been  rightly  informed,  my  letter  to 
Dr.  Coke  was  opened  in  his  absence — such  a  freedom  being  under- 
stood, as  I  supposed,  t;)  arise  out  of  tbe  connection  between  the  two 
gentlemen.  But  for  this  part  of  the  statement  I  cannot  vouch.  It 
was  understood  between  Dr.  Coke  and  me,  that  the  proposal  should 
be  communicated  to  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  at  the  next 
Convention,  which  was  to  be  in  September,  1792,  in  New  York. 
This  was  accordingly  done.  After  which,  I  perceived  no  use  of  fur- 
ther communication  on  the  subject;  and  I  have  not  since  seen  Dr. 
Coke,  nor  heard  from  him,  nor  ^Titten  to  him. 

"  It  appears  to  me  that  the  above  comprehends  either  explicitly  or 
by  implication,  all  the  points  to  which  your  letter  leads.  It  would 
have  been  more  agreeable  to  me,  if  no  occasion  of  this  testimony 
had  occurred;  and  it  is  now  given,  merely  to  prevent  the  matter 
being  understood  otherwise  than  it  really  is. 

"  The  above  is  what  I  have  written  to  Mr.  McClaskey,  and  I  re- 
main, &c.  &c. 

Y'our  affectionate  brother, 

WILLIAM  WHITE.-' 

Some  eight  or  nine  years  after  the  failure  of  the  above  overture, 
Dr.  Coke  made  a  similar  one  to  the  "  Lord  Bishop  of  London."  In 
this  letter  to  the  bishop,  an  "  interview"  is  sought  by  the  doctor,  pro- 
vided his  "  lordship"  would  signify  his  willingness.  To  "  some  of  his 
most  intimate  friends,"  he  says,  he  "  has  ventured  to  disclose  this 
plan"  of  effecting  a  union  between  the3Icthodist  and  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  that  "  it  meets  their  decided  approbation  and  cordial 
wishes  for  success;"  and  furthermore,  says  the  doctor,  "  the  Attor- 
ney-General, with  whom  I  had  the  honor  of  being  acquainted  at 


APPENDIX.  343 

Oxford,  approved  of  it,'"  and  '•'  encouraged  me  to  lay  the  wbole  at 
the  feet  of  your  lordsbip."  "  The  plan"  lies  '•  at  the  feet  of  his  lord- 
ship.'' -we  suppose,  to  this  day;  for  he  does  not  seem  to  have  taken 
it  from  his  footstool. 

Before  dismissing  this  topic,  allow  us  to  observe,  that  Dr.  Coke 
made  still  a  third  effort  for  the  bishopric.  In  1813,  he  addressed  a 
letter  to  "  some  of  the  most  eminent  and  influential  British  states- 
men," petitioning  for  Episcopal  orders,  and  promising  "  to  renounce 
all  connection  tnth  the  JJdhodists,  if  the  Prince  Eegent  would  only  make  Mm 
a  bishop  for  India!'''  About  the  same  time,  he  addressed  a  letter  to 
Wilberforce,  in  which  he  engages:  "In  case  of  my  appointment  to 
the  Episcopacy  to  India,  [I  shall]  reium  most  fully  and  faithfully  into 
the  bosom  of  the  Established  Church,  and  do  everything  in  my  power  to 
promote  its  interests,"  &c. —  Wtlberforce  Correspondence,  vol.  ii,  p.  114, 
quoted  in  Paris'  History  of  the  Prot.  Meih.  Church,  p.  385.  But  alas 
this  overture  also  failed'.  None  could  be  found  to  "  pity  the  sorrows 
of  the  poor  old  man!" 

Now,  if  the  ••  Book  of  Discipline"  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  speaks  the  truth  in  its  first  section,  when  it  affirms  that  Mr. 
Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke  to  the  Episcopal  office,  how  comes  it  to 
pass  that  Dr.  Coke  applied  to  Bishop  "White,  not  only  for  his  own 
consecration  to  that  office,  but  for  the  ordination  of  a  competent 
number  of  preachers  in  the  Methodist  connection,  to  administer  the 
sacraments  to  the  societies?  If  he  were  already  a  bi.<hop,  why  did 
he  not  ordain  these  preachers?  And  why  did  he  make  two  other 
distinct  overtures  to  secure  Episcopal  consecration?  And  yet  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Methodist  Discipline  alleges  that  he  was  a  bishop 
many  years  before  either  of  these  overtures  were  made ! ! 

But  perhaps  Dr.  Coke  took  the  same  view  of  his  ordination  by 
John  Wesley,  that  the  poet,  Charles  Wesley,  did.  The  Methodist 
Hymn  Book  docs  not  contain  the  following  effusion  of  Charles,  and 
it  is,  therefore,  indebted  to  some  other  channel  for  having  reached 
our  generation.  If  it  would  not  be  considered  impertinent,  wo 
would  suggest  that  it  constitute  tlie  chorus  to  the  hymn  usually  sung 
at  the  ordination  of  bishops: 

"  So  easily  arc  biithopa  made. 
By  maii'ii  or  woman'»  wliiin, 
W«ley  his  hnnHs  on  Coke  hatli  laid. 
But  wuo  laiu  uands  on  iiimJ'" 


344  APPENDIX. 


c. 

The  following  commuuication,  written  for  the  '  South  "Western 
Baptist,'  during  the  foregoing  discussion,  by  a  distinguished  minis- 
ter of  Mississippi,  so  ably  discusses  the  "  Munster  aflair,"  that  we 
beg  leave  to  insert  it  here,  instead  of  the  article  we  promised  on 
that  subject.  Editoe. 

THE  PEASANTS'  WAR  IN  GERMANY. 

Mr.  Editor:  As  this  subject  has  been  alluded  to,  not  only  by  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Hamill  and  Ferguson,  but  also  several  times  of  late  by 
others,  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  both  in  the  pulpit  and  in  pub- 
lic journals,  I  ask  the  opportunity  of  replying,  through  your  columns, 
to  the  stereotyped  charge  founded  upon  it.  Let  me  premise  by  say- 
ing that  I  have  no  wish  to  interfere,  in  the  slightest  degree,  in  the 
original  subject  of  debate  betvv  een  Mr.  Hamill  and  yourself;  but  as 
this  subject  forms  merely  a  collateral  issue,  my  remarks  may  not 
perhaps  be  considered  either  impertinent  or  irrelevant. 

It  was  once  observed  by  Ciu'rau,  the  great  Irish  orator,  as  an  apolo- 
gy for  his  excessive  indulgence  in  the  reading  of  romances,  that  they 
were  about  as  truthful  as  most  histories,  and  that  they  were  certain- 
ly a  grea^t  deal  more  entertaining.  His  own  experience  in  public 
affairs,  he  said,  had  convinced  him  that  only  the  great  and  promi- 
nent facts  of  history  could  be  relied  on,  whilst  the  details,  and  espe- 
cially the  motives,  assigned  for  the  conduct  of  princes  and  statesmen, 
were  very  frequently  entirely  unworthy  of  credit.  Mr.  Jcflerson's 
very  emphatic  language  about  the  untruthfulness  of  newspapers, 
will  be  remembered  by  most  of  the  readers  of  Mr.  Baldwin's  late 
work.  After  making  all  due  allowance  for  a  little  extravagance 
on  the  part  of  the  eminent  men  referred  to,  it  must  be  admitted, 
that  the  statements  of  partisan  books  as  well  as  of  partisan  newspa- 
pers, must  be  received  with  many  grains  of  allowance.  Every 
school-boy  has  learned  to  talk  of  runica  fides,  Punic  faith;  but  it  may 
well  be  doubted,  whether  if  we  had  the  Carthagenian  account,  we 
should  not  be  disposed  to  think  the  countrymen  of  Hannibal  quite 
as  faithful  to  their  engagement  as  those  of  Scipio.    Hear  both  sides, 


APPENDIX.  345 

is  a  maxim  whose  jnstice  will  commend  itself  to  cTeryundcrstand- 
ing.  In  judging  of  the  political  and  religious  parties  that  have  ex- 
isted in  England,  we  have  the  means  of  applying  this  rule.  Every- 
man of  education  has  the  means  of  judging  of  the  real  merits  and 
demerits  of  the  Puritans  and  Cavaliers,  the  Whigs  and  Tories,  the 
Catholics  and  Protestants.  Hume,  Lingard,  Macaulay,  Clarendon, 
Lucy  Hutchinson,  and  many  other  writers  are  accessible  to  every 
historical  student  who  has  the  necessary  leisure  and  means.  The 
different  religious  and  political  parties  arc  represented  by  those 
writers,  and  wo  have  the  means  of  comparing  their  diiferent  state- 
ments, and  thus  judging  for  ourselves.  Not  so,  however,  with  the 
German  peasants  and  German  Anabaptists.  They,  like  the  Cartha- 
gcnians  of  old,  have  no  one  to  speak  in  their  behalf.  If  they  could 
speak  from  their  bloody  graves,  they  might  perhaps  say  a  great  deal 
in  mitigation  of  the  harsh  judgment  of  posterity.  Their  talc  has 
been  told  not  by  themselves,  but  by  writers  who  belonged  to  the 
party  of  their  conquerors.  Less  fortunate  than  the  Scottish  Cov- 
enanters, they  have  had  no  Dr.  McCrie  to  come  forward  as  their 
champion. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  they  are  presented  by 
those  who  had  no  sympathies  except  those  of  our  common  humanity, 
cither  with  the  peasants  or  the  Anabaptists.  The  feudal  system  had 
long  borne  most  heavily  upon  the  lower  classes  throughout  Europe. 
With  the  increasing  luxury  and  magnificence  of  the  princes,  nobles, 
and  gentry,  its  evils  had  become  more  and  more  aggravated.  As 
the  habits  of  the  upper  classes  become  more  expensive,  in  the  same 
proportion  did  their  exactions  become  more  intolerable.  At  the 
same  time,  Europe  was  beginning  to  awaken  from  her  sleep  of  many 
long  and  dark  centuries.  The  sun  of  modern  civilization,  after  a 
long  and  gloomy  night,  had  arisen  above  the  horizon  and  begun  to 
enlighten  the  nations.  Some  few  scattered  rays,  at  least,  had  pene- 
trated the  dark  and  cheerless  abodes  of  poverty  and  ignorance. 
Tlic  humble  classes  began  to  ask  themselves  if  their  wretchedness 
and  degradation  formed  a  neces.*nry  part  of  the  scheme  of  Provi- 
dence, and  if  the  existing  state  of  things  were  essential  to  the  exist- 
ence of  sociclr.  Their  longing  eyes  anxiously  sought  some  star  of 
hope.  They  asked  themselves  with  mingled  feelings  of  hope  and 
despair:  Is  there  no  prospect  of  amelioration;  must  our  miseries  en- 


346  APPENDIX. 

dure  forever?  More  tban  a  century  before  the  beginning  of  the  Re- 
formation, and  in  the  reign  of  Richard  II.,  an  insurrection  of  the 
lower  classes,  headed  by  Wat  Tyler,  had  broken  out  in  England. 
John  Ball,  a  secular  priest,  and  a  supposed  disciple  of  Wickliffe,  was 
said  to  have  done  much  to  excite  the  spirit  of  insubordination  then 
prevalent  in  that  kingdom.     His  well-known  distitch — 

"  When  Adam  delved  and  Eve  span. 
Where  was  then  the  gentleman?" 

is  familiar  to  most  persons  who  have  a  tolerable  acquaintance  with 
English  history,  and  its  appeal  to  the  original  equality  of  our  race 
is  apt  to  affect  the  hearts  of  men  of  generous  sensibilities,  and  espe- " 
cially  of  those  who  belong  to  a  down-trodden  class.  It  is  a  matter 
of  perfect  notoriety,  that  ages  before  Luther,  and  even  before  the 
time  of  Wickliffe,  insun-ections  of  the  common  people  had  broken 
out  in  various  countries  of  Europe.  Hume  mentions  insurrections 
in  Flanders  and  France  that  had  preceded  those  in  England  during 
the  reign  of  Richard  II.  D'Aubigne  himself,  a  very  few  pages  be- 
fore that  from  which  Mr.  Hamill's  extract  is  taken,  uses  the  follow- 
ing language:  "  A  political  ferment,  very  different  from  that  which 
the  gospel  brings  with  it,  had  long  been  secretly  working  in  the 
empire.  Sinking  under  secular  and  ecclesiastical  oppression,  and 
in  some  of  the  States,  forming  part  of  the  seigneurial  property,  and 
liable  to  sale  with  it,  the  people  began  to  threaten  to  rise  in  insur- 
rection and  burst  their  fetters."  He  then  goes'on  to  mention  vari- 
ous insurrections  that  had  taken  place  in  different  parts  of  Germany, 
and  also  in  Hungary,  before  either  Luther  or  Munzer  had  become  a 
prominent  actor  on  the  theatre  of  the  world.  From  all  this,  it  is 
perfectly  evident  that  neither  Luther  nor  Munzer,  nor  the  Anabap- 
tists, originated  the  commotions  in  Germany.  They  originated  from 
the  oppressions  of  the  princes  and  nobles  under  the  feudal  system. 
It  is  altogether  probable,  however,  that  the  example  of  Luther,  in 
rebelling  against  his  ecclesiastical  superiors,  might  have  encouraged 
the  peasants  in  rebelling  against  their  civil  tyrants.  The  revolt  of 
Luther  was  the  application  of  a  lighted  torch  to  a  powder  magazine. 
This  is  according  to  the  natural  course  of  things.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Luther  would  have  restrained  the  peasants  from  insurrection, 
had  it  been  in  his  power:  but  he  had  raised  a  hurricane  which  he 


APPENDIX.  341 

could  not  possibly  govern.  Ignorant  and  deljascd  as  were  the  Ger- 
man peasants,  they  could  not  avoid  making  an  application  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformation  to  the  civil  relations  of  life;  and  as 
Bancroft  says,  "  the  plebean  sect  of  Anabaptist,  with  greater  consist- 
ency than  Luther,  threatened  an  end  to  kingcraft,  spiritual  dominion, 
tythes,  and  vassalage."  Who  blames  them?  They  only  attempted 
to  do  what  our  fathers  achieved.  Again:  It  is  altogether  probable, 
as  D'Aubignc  says,  that  long  before  the  Reformation,  a  feeling  of 
religion  had  mingled  itself  with  the  political  elemeuts  of  resistance. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  lower  order  of  Romish  priests,  sprang  as 
they  were  from  the  common  people,  and  sympathiziug  with  tlicm, 
had  darkly  brooded  over  their  wrongs,  and  fostered  a  spirit  of  re- 
sistance. There  is  equally  little  doubt  that,  after  the  breaking 
out  of  the  disturbances  subsequent  to  Luther's  quarrel  with  the  pa- 
pacy, Munzer,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  peasants,  did  appeal  to  the 
religious  element  that  is  everywhere  found  in  human  nature,  and 
attempt  to  make  use  of  it  as  the  means  of  reconstructing  the  politi- 
cal institutions  of  society.  How  far  he  was  an  imposter,  and  how 
far  an  enthusiast,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  know.  Probably,  like 
thousands  of  others,  he  was  a  compound  of  both.  Had  he  succeed- 
ed, he  would  have  been  hailed  as  a  patriot  and  a  hero.  Germany 
might  have  revered  her  peasant  hero,  as  France  reveres  her  Joan  of 
Arc.  But  it  was  not  so  to  be;  the  peasants  under  their  various  lead- 
ers, were  everywhere  crushed.  The  party  was  trodden  under  foot. 
An  unsuccessful  cause  soon  becomes  an  unpopular  one.  The  Ro- 
man Catholics  accused  Luther  and  liis  friends  of  being  the  authors 
of  the  late  confusions,  and  they  in  turn  laid  the  blame  upon  the 
Anabai)tists.  They  being  the  weak  party,  were  made  the  scape 
goats,  and  had  to  bear  the  odium  of  atrocities  committed  by  them 
in  common  with  others.  I  pretend  not  to  deny  the  atrocities  com- 
mitted by  the  peasants;  nor  do  I  pretend  to  deny  that  Munzer,  and 
other  Anabaptists,'wore  concerned  in  the  disturbances.  But  I  do 
not  sec  the  justice  of  holding  up  to  public  odium  the  sins  of  Munzer 
and  the  peasants, Tvbile  those  of  the  nobles  are  passed  over  without 
a  breath  of  censure;  nor  of  making  a  particular  religious  community 
responsible  for  political  commotions  In  which  they  only  took  a  part 
along  with  others.  No  one,  I  suppose,  will  pretend  that  the  rebels 
consisted  eutlrcly  of  Anabaptists.    The  truth  is,  there  is  every  rca- 


348  APPENDIX. 

son  to  Ibellevo,  that  if  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  peasants  had 
been  complied  with,  all  the  subsequent  horrors  would  have  been 
avoided.  Let  any  one  read  their  demands,  as  contained  in  the 
twelve  articles,  and  no  one,  witli  an  American  heart  in  his  bosom, 
will  deny  their  justice.  Let  auy  jone  read  over  so  common  a  book 
as  D'Aubigne's  History,  and  he  will  be  convinced  that  the  peasants 
could  not  have  exceeded  the  nobles  in  their  atrocious  cruelty.  Simi- 
lar scenes  to  those  which  took  place  in  Germany,  always  accompany 
civil  war  in  a  barbarous  ago  and  country.  But  to  show  conclusively 
that  it  was  the  Democratic,  and  not  auy  religious  principle  whatever  that 
caused  the  disturbances  in  Germany,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  quote  a 
single  sentence  from  D"Aubigne.  He  is  speakHig  of  those  places  in 
which  the  peasants  had  prevailed:  "  Equality  of  ranks,  that  dream 
of  Democrats,  was  established  in  aristocratic  Germany."  This  sen- 
tence is  fraught  with  moaning,  aud  is  a  key  to  the  whole  subject. 

But,  say  some  one  of  the  opponents  of  the  Baptists — these  Ger- 
man fanatics,  these  odious  Anabaptists,  taught  not  only  that  magis- 
tracy aud  private  property  ought  to  be  abolished,  but  that  polygamy 
ought  to  ]]e  allowed.  Suppose  they  did;  what  then?  It  only  shows 
that  they  were  a  A^ery  diflerent  class  of  men  from  the  Baptists,  either 
of  England  or  America,  and,  consequently,  that  it  is  doing  the  lat- 
ter the  grossest  injustice  to  confound  them  with  men  so  totally  dis- 
similar. The  only  points  of  resemblance,  if  the  common  accounts 
of  the  German  Anabaptists  can  be  relied  on,  between  them  and  the 
modern  Baptists,  will  be  found  to  consist  in  the  coincidence  of  their 
views  on  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism!  The  attempt  to  identify 
classes  so  dissimilar,  reminds  one  of  Capt.  Fluellin's  attempt  to  make 
out  points  of  comparison  between  Alexander  the  Great  and  King 
Harry  V.  Alexander  was  born  in  Macedon,  and  Harry  was  born  in 
Monmouth,  and  there  was  a  river  in  Macedon  and  also  a  river  in 
Monmouth.  "We  Baptists  have  just  this  to  say,  that  if  the  German 
Anabaptists  held  views  subvei'sive  of  the  interests  of  society,  the 
origin  of  those  views  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in  their  opinions 
concerning  baptism.  Every  candid  man  will  admit  that  the  belief 
that  baptism  is  rightly  performed  by  immersion,  aud  that  only  per- 
sons making  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  should  be  baptized,  is 
altogether  consistent  with  all  the  duties  of  citizenship.  No  one  in 
our  country  will  stultify  himself  by  asserting  the  contrary.    I  wil- 


APPENDIX.  349 

lingly  admit  that  a  belief  of  this  sort  does  conflict  with  any  scheme 
for  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  In  any  other  point  of  view,  the 
Baptist  creed  is  at  least  harmless  to  society.  It  would  certainly  be 
both  foolish  and  unjust  for  us  to  upbraid  our  Pedo  baptist  brethren 
with  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  and  the  crusade  of  Simon  De 
Montfort  against  the  Albigenses,  because,  forsooth,  the  popish  per- 
secutors and  inquisitors  happen  to  be  Pedo-baptists.  Equally  unjust 
is  it  for  us  to  be  held  responsible  for  anything  else  than  our  avowed 
sentiments.  If  men  holding  our  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, blended  with  them  other  sentiments  with  which  they  have  no 
neces.sary  connection,  dangerous  to  .«oicety,  we  are  in  no  respect  re- 
sponsible. It  would  be  quite  as  just  to  make  the  Republicans  of 
the  United  States  responsible  for  the  excesses  of  the  French  Ja- 
cobins. J.  A.  P. 
Xoxvhee  Coun'.y,  Mississippi. 


D. 

THE  "ADVOCATES"  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

"  To  know  thihgs  ifflheir  causes,"'  is  said  to  be  the  highest  intel- 
lectual attainment.  But  there  are  things  which  we  must  content 
ourselves  to  know  by  their  effects.  Now,  there  is  nothing  more 
jihilosophically  established  than  that  principle  lies  at  the  basis  of 
all  human  character  and  conduct.  Indeed,  tiiis  sentiment  is  ex- 
pressly taught  by  the  Son  of  God  himself:  "  By  Iheir  fruits  i/e  shall 
know  them."  For  instance,  if  a  man  adopts  the  Koran  as  his  religi- 
ous creed,  he  will  most  likely  abandon  himself  to  sensual  indul- 
gence; because  the  "  false  prophet,"  Mahomet,  taught  his  followers 
that  thp  happiness  of  heaven  would  greatly  consist  in  the  gratifica- 
tion of  our  passions  and  appetites.  A  man's  political  or  religious 
creed  becomea  a  mould,  in  which  are  cast  all  his  principles,  feel- 
ings, and  habitH.  Whatever  that  creed  is,  lie  is  sure  lo  become.  If  it 
is  tyrannical  and  proscrijjtive,  he  will,  in  the  end  at  least,  reflect 
its  spirit  in  his  intercourse  with  society.  "SVe  propose  exhibiting,  in 
a  few  pages,  tiie  "  nature  and  tenflenne-i  <>/  Mclho^Msl  Ejii'^copaaj  "  hy  this 
rule,  sanctioned  alike  by  reason  and  revelation. 


350  APPENDIX. 

Scarcely  had  we  commenced  the  discussion  in  the  foregoing  part 
of  this  volume,  before  we  were  assailed  by  some  of  the  Methodist 
'^Advocates'''  with  a  virulence  which  at  first  startled  us.  "We  could 
scarcely  believe  our  senses.  That  the  editors  and  correspondents  of 
"  Chrislian  Advocates  "  should  bandy  such  epithets  as  were  heaped 
upon  us,  came  not  within  the  range  of  credibility.  Had  we  been 
the  vilest  outcast  that  disgraced  humanity,  such  opprobrious  terms 
would  have  been  no  credit  to  Christian  men.  By  one  of  these  "Ad- 
vocates,'" we  were  denounced  as  having  been  guilty  of  the  "  lowest 
piece  of  demagoguism  that  has  yet  transpired  !"  By  a  correspond- 
ent of  the  same  paper,  who  imputed  to  us  sentiments  we  neither  be- 
lieved or  wrote,  we  were  characterized  as  "  a  legitimate  child  of 
the  father  of  lies !"  Even  the  proprietor  of  the  '  South  Western  Bap- 
tist '  was  assailed  for  allowing  such  a  discussion  to  be  carried  on  in 
its  columns,  the  subject  matter  of  which  was  declared  to  be  a  "  libel " 
upon  Methodism !  Another  one  of  these  "Advocates'''  denounced  us 
as  having  offended  against  "  Christian  charity- ' — as  "  accuser  of  the 
brethren  " — and  as  uttering  "  self-evidenlhj  malicious  misrepresentations;" 
&c.,  &c.  And  for  what?  "Will  it  be  believed  that  our  only  crime 
was  this: — That  an  article  was  copied  into  the  paper  of  which  we 
were  one  of  the  editors,  which  discussed,  not  the  doctrines,  nor  the 
piety  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  but  the  simple  isolated 
topic  of  their  Church  polity,  and  that  we  opened  the  columns  of  the 
•Baptist'  to  a  respectable,  worthy  and  talented  minister  of  that 
Church,  to  defend  that  polity,  reserving  to  ourself  the  right  to 
respond  to  his  communications! !  This  was  "  the  head  and  frout  of 
our  offending:  it  hath  nothing  more." 

There  is  one  peculiarity  in  the  treatment  we  have  received  from 
the  hands  of  these  "Advocates,"  which  cannot  fail  to  impress  the 
reader.  Their  editors,  in  all  their  allusions  te)  it,  up  to  its  close,  or 
nearly  so,  seem  to  have  studiously  ignored  the  fact  that  ive  had  any 
antagonist  at  all  in  the  discussion.  Did  they  regard  Mr.  Hamill  as  in- 
competent to  defend  their  Church  economy?  Then  why  did  they- 
not  undertake  it?  One  of  them  admits  that  he  had  been  urged  by 
his  brethren  to  undertake  their  defence.  "We  assured  him  if  he 
would  do  so,  that  we  would  give  him  column  for  column,  until  the 
discussion  closed.  But  this  he  declined,  declaring  in  so  many  words, 
"  We  cannot  reciprocate."    Or  did  these  editors  seek  to  stifle  all  discus- 


APPENDIX.  351 

sion  on  this  subject?  Was  there  a  secret  conviction  upon  their 
minds,  that  an  ecclesiastical  polity,  the  "-will"  of  whose  rulers  "  is 
omnipotent  in  the  premises  " — whose  bishops  and  clergy  "  estab- 
lished the  doctrines  and  discipline,  appointed  the  several  authori- 
ties ...  to  administer  its  polity"' — in  whose  "  governmental  organ- 
ization '•"  "  lay  members  have  no  part  or  connection,  and  never  had" 
— the  General  Conferences  of  which,  composed  exclusively  of  the 
bishops  and  travelling  preachers,  "repi'esent  themselves,  and  have 
no  constituents" — we  say,  was  there  a  secret  conviction  resting 
upon  their  minds,  that  such  a  theory  of  government  as  this,  could 
not  be  defended  in  this  enlightened  age  and  country,  either  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hamill,  or  any  other'living  man  ?  If  the  former — that  is,  if 
Mr.  IIamill  were  incapable  of  executing  the  task  he  had  under- 
taken— if  he  were  incompetent  to  repel  the  "  self  evidently  malici- 
ous misrepresentations''  which  we  were  writing  and  publishing 
against  "  our  Episcopacy" — then,  as  they  had  been  "  set  for  the  de- 
fence of"  this  Episcopacy,  by  their  General  Conference,  they  were 
recreant  to  their  trust  in  not  flying  to  his  rescue.  But  if  the  latter 
— if  such  a  system  of  polity  cannot  be  defended  in  this  age  and 
country — if  to  discuss  it  simply,  becomes  an  "  offence  against  Chris- 
tian charity,"  and  makes  him  who  has  the  temerity  to  do  so  a  dema- 
gogue, and  a  kgitimate  child  of  the  father  of  lies—ihc  public  can  judge 
whether  there  is  not  ".something  rotten  in  the  state  of  Denmark." 

We  have  two  or  three  reasons  for  publishing  in  an  appendix,  the 
articles  which  follow: 

First:  The  editors  of  these  "Advocates"  refused  to  publish  our 
defence  against  their  charges.  Though  we  were  at  the  same  time 
extending  the  courtesy  we  asked,  to  one  of  their  own  ministers,  yet 
ifiey  denied  it  to  m.  And  as  our  own  paper  can  never  reach  their 
readers,  we  embrace  this,  as  the  only  means  we  can  ever  liavc,  of 
personal  exculpation. 

Secondly:  As  we  have  been  discussing  in  the  foregoing  volume, 
the  theory  and  practice  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  we  cannot  do  the 
reader  a  greater  service,  than  to  allow  the  system  to  speak  for  it- 
self. We  therefore  present  tliese  articles  as  a  fcic  specimens  of  the 
spirit,  refinement,  and  piety  of  the  Methodist  press.  It  may  be  supposed 
that,  had  these  men's  characters  been  formed  under  a,  more  liberal, 
enlightened,  and  charitable  ecclesiastical  economy,  they  would  have 


352  APPENDIX. 

been  as  courteous  and  respectful  as  the  balance  of  the  editorial 
corps.  It  is  that  '■'  system,"  as  Bishop  Hamlixe  calls  it,  "  of  surpass- 
ing energy,"  which  has  made  them  M'hat  they  are  in  this  respect. 
They  are  just  what  Episcopacy  has  made  its  votaries  in  all  ages, 
since  it  tore  the  sceptre  of  government  from  the  hands  of  God's  ap- 
pointed "  kings  and  priests,"  and  what  it  will  always  make  them, 
until  it  is  "  twice  dead,  and  plucked  up  by  the  roots."  It  is,  there- 
fore, upon  this  system,  not  upon  its  victims,  that  we  make  war. 

Thirdly:  "We  have  been  called  upon  to  publish  the  "  entire  discus- 
sion," as  it  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  '  South  "Western  Baptist,' 
and  as  these  articles  constitute  a  part  of  it,  we  have  not  felt  at  li- 
berty to  withhold  them. 

The  New  Orleans  Christian  Advocate. 

The  first  article  is  taken  from  the  New-Orleans  Christian  Advo- 
cate, of  the  19th  May,  1855,  and  written  by  an  ex-presiding  elder  of 
the  Alabama  Conference.  "We  could  not  wish  to  inflict  a  worse 
chastisement  upon  this  swaggering  divine,  than  the  bare  publication 
of  his  piece.  Hence  our  summary  reply  to  it.  If  Job's  enemies 
wrote  in  the  spirit  and  style  of  this  reverend  gentleman,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  he  cx'claimed:  "  0,  that  mine  enemy  would  write  a 
book !" 

• 
From  (he  JV.  0.  Christian  Advocate,  May  I'dth,  1855. 

"  The  Baptists  A^■TI-AMERICAN. 
Mr.  Editor: 

For  the  sake  of  our  common  Protestant  Christianity,  I  would  for- 
bear the  following  expose  of  the  Baptists  in  this  country,  if  I  were 
not  persuaded  that  the  forbearance  would  be  a  greater  sin  than  the 
publication  of  this  article. 

The  grievance  is  this:  The  South  "VYesteru  Baptist,  a  so-called  re- 
ligious journal  of  that  sect,  published  in  Tuskegeo,  Ala.,  and  edited 
by  elder  Samuel  Henderson,  puts  forth  in  a  late  number  four  col- 
umns on  the  anti-Republican  and. anti-American  tendencies  of  Epis- 
copal Methodism !  This  appeared  as  an  extract  from  the  Western 
"Watchman,  but  appearing  without  note  or  comment  of  modification 
or  apology,  the  Methodists  in  and  about  Tuskegec  felt  grieved  and 


APPENDIX.  353 

insulted,  but  disposed  to  seek  a  disclaimer  on  the  part  of  the  Bap- 
tists of  Alabama,  at  least,  through  this  acknowledged  organ.  The 
Rev.  E.  J.  Hamill  addressed  to  Mr.  Henderson  a  calm  and  dignified 
statement  of  the  outline  polity,  indorsed  by  three  of  the  worthy 
brethren  of  his  charge.  But  Mr.  Henderson  has  nothing  to  take 
back,  but  reaffirms,  "  boldly,"  all  that  is  false  and  ofiensive  in  the 
article.  So  that  the  issue  is  fairly  made — viz:  That  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  its  government,  is  alien  to  and  inimical  to  the 
Republic  of  the  United  States;  while  the  Baptist  Church  is  not  only 
the  great  moral  substratum  on  which  rests  our  civil  institutions,  but 
its  democracy  glows  like  the  fires  of  pure  "  firmamentum,"  and 
warms  the  Republic  into  a  white  heat — leaves  no  residuum,  nor 
emits  a  particle  of  smoke!  Now,  if  the  editor  had  said  that  the  Me- 
thodists were  heretics  in  doctrine,  disobedient  to  gospel  law,  we 
would  have  replied.  But  then  that  is  the  battle  ground  on  which 
we  have  encountered  all  your  champions  and  laid  them  low.  But 
this  is  a  new  field  and  a  new  fight;  for  it  is  not  the  theology  of  Me- 
thodism which  is  attacked,  but  its  patriotism.  A  man  may  call  me 
a  fanatic,  a  hypocrite  in  religion,  and  I,  for  Christ's  sake,  may  turn 
the  other  cheek;  but  when  he  attempts  to  attaint  of  treason  to  my 
country's  government,  before  heaven  and  earth,  for  myself  and  my 
Church,  I  proclaim  him  a  legitimate  child  of  him  who  is  the  "  father 
of  lies  !•■'  But  not  to  waste  time  nor  space,  I  now  propose  to  end  or 
lieighten  the  interest  of  this  discussion,,  by  proclaiming,  that  both 
history  and  facts,  existing  facts,  warn  the  people  of  these  United 
States  to  have  an  eye  on  the  doings,  sayings,  and  tendencies  of  the 
sects  claiming  Baptist  affinities.  For,  having  no  form  of  Church 
government  of  their  own,  is  It  not  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world  that  they  "  despise  government?"  And  this  is  the  more  to  be 
apprehended,  because  of  their  being  regular  descendants  (ecclesi- 
astically) of  Munzer,  Stubncr,  Storick,  &c.  "  These  men  taught  that 
among  Christians,  who  had  the  precepts  of  the  gospel  to  direct  and 
the  Spirit  to  guide  them,  the  office  of  magistracy  was  not  only  un- 
necessary, but  an  unlaAvful  encroachment  on  their  spiritual  lilierty; 
that  the  distinctions  occasioned  by  birth,  rank,  wealth,  should  be 
abolished;  that  all  Christians  throwing  their  possessions  into  one 
Btock,  should  live  togctlier  in  that  state  of  cfiuality  which  becomes 
members  of  the  same  family;  that,  as  neither  the  laws  of  nature  nor 
31 


354  APPENDIX. 

the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  had  itvohibited polt/ffamy,  they 
should  use  the  same  libei'ty  as  the  patriarchs  in  this  respect." — (See 
Buck).  Now,  I  guess,  Elder  Henderson  will  surely  admit  that,  if 
the  oft  repeated  quotation — 

"  We  are  no  Republicans,  and  never  intend  to  be."— John  Wesley. 

is  an  antecedent  showing  the  tendencies  of  Methodism,  the  above  is 
equally  conclusive  as  to  what  the  American  people  are  to  appre- 
hend from  the  pure  democracy  of  the  Baptist  sects ! 

The  elder,  in  his  reply  to  Brother  Hamill,  raises  two  inquiries, 
and  these  are  the  texts  from  which  he  eliminates  his  yard  of  balder- 
dash— he  will  permit  me  to  repeat  them  witk  a  slight  change: 

1st.  Is  the  anarchical,  mobocratic  feature  of  the  Baptist  Churches 
a  legitimate  subject  of  newspaper  discussion? 

2d.  Is  Church  polity,  as  an  element  in  the  formation  of  political 
character,  of  sufiQcient  importance  to  merit  the  attention  of  politi- 
cians and  statesmen  ? 

Like  the  elder,  I  will  say  nothing  of  the  piety  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  Baptist  people,  only  to  wish  one  purer  and  the  other  truer. 
But  it  is  with  the  error  into  which  they  have  fallen  in  pretending 
they  have  any  Church  government  at  all  that  I  have  to  do;  or  if 
they  have  any,  it  is  the  great  embodiment  of  anarchy,  and,  there- 
fore, dangerous  to  civil  liberty  and  the  maintenance  and  perpetua- 
tion of  constitutional  democracy.  This  feature  of  the  Baptist 
Churches  "  is  of  foreign  birth,  a  transplant "  from  Holland;  has 
yet  plenty  of  offshoots,  who  glory  still  in  the  monstrous  errors  of 
their  original;  such  as  the  Mcnonites,  who,  according  to  Benedict, 
(a  Baptist  historian,)  had  in  the  United  States,  in  1824,  some  two 
hundred  Churches,  and  "  one  article  of  their  faith  is,  never  to  bear 
arms."  Fine  supporters  of  Republicanism,  these !  But  the  best 
specimen  is  the  Mormons,  who  claim  to  be  the  only  true  Church, 
the  saints  par  excellence;  claim  the  world  and  all  its  riches;  glory 
in  polygamy;  have  had  several  brushes  at  arms  against  "  the  powers 
that  be,"  one  of  these  of  very  recent  date,  with  Uncle  Sam's  own 
troops ! 

Now  to  the  second  question.  And  right  here  let  us  agree,  if  we- 
can,  as  to  what  American  Republicanism  is— or  rather,  Deimcracu. 

Elder  Henderson  appeals  to  Noah  "Webster  for  the  definition  of 


APPENDIX. 


555 


words.  Why  not  seek  to  learn  from  Daniel  Webster  the  definition  of 
the  thing  itself?  To  these  words  and  their  meanings  I  have  no  objec- 
tion, but  they  do  not  fully  cover  the  ground;  for  ours  is  a  demo- 
cracy or  government  by  the  people,  under  a  wi-itten  constitution, 
which,  constitution  is  as  clearly  supreme  as  the  autocrat  of  Russia. 
The  elder  will  please  let  mo  try  my  hand  at  definition.  The  writ- 
ten constitution,  made  by  delegates  chosen  by  the  qualified  electors 
of  the  States,  and  ratified  by  the  same,  is  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land.  This  supreme  law  or  instrument  of  power  hath  its  exponents 
of  its  prerogatives  in  the  executive,  the  legislative  and  the  judicial 
departments.  In  the  first  of  these  we  have  presidents  and  govern- 
ors, chosen  by  the  people;  in  the  second,  legislators;  and  in  the 
third,  judges.  The  legislators  make  the  laws;  the  judges  decide 
questions  of  law;  and  the  executives  execute  the  laws  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  the  other  two;  but  all  these  act  in  subordination  to 
the  constitution.  Now,  attention,  the  whole!  Has  the  Baptist 
Church,  so  called,  anytliing  like  this  above  ground?  Is  there  any 
such  thing  as  the  Baptist  Church?  I  know  there  are  thousands  of 
independent  congregations,  but  what  bond  of  union,  connectional 
tie,  have  they?  Where  is  its  written  constitution,  defining  rights, 
powers  and  prerogatives,  and  duties  of  its  ministers  and  members? 
I  know  of  none,  uuless  it  can  be  found  in  their  speech  and  practice 
— to  wit :  Article  I.  Baptism  by  immersion.  Art.  II.  Close  com- 
munion. By-Laws. — 1.  Be  very  bigoted.  2.  Be  very  exclusive. 
But  how  unlike  all  this  is  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States! 
Where  is  its  executive,  its  legislature,  its  judiciary?  I  doubt  not, 
some  of  my  Baptist  friends  are  getting  hot  as  they  read  along  here, 
for,  say  they,  have  not  Brother  Graves  and  Brother  Sturgis,  and 
others,  of  late,  been  preaching  that  the  United  States  Government 
was  modeled  after  the  government  of  the  Baptist  Church?  And 
surely  they  know.  Very  well,  wc  shall  see.  Brother  Graves  plays 
at  brag,  and  offers  to  bet  largely,  sometimes,  in  the  way  of  proffered 
rewards.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  I  shall  not  be  severely  censured 
if  I  offer  a  reward  of  one  tlwu-tand  dollars  for  the  original  document, 
or  a  well  authenticated  copy  of  the  same.  That  is  to  say,  if  tiie 
Convention  that  framed  the  constitution  worked  Ijy  a  pattern,  wliich 
pattern  was  the  written  constitution  of  the  Baptist  Church,  it  was 
before  that  Convention,  either  in  ft  printed  book  or  manuscript. 


356  APPENDIX. 

Where  is  the  precious  relic?    I'm  sure,  if  I  get  it,  Barnum  will  give 
me  ten  thousand  dollars  for  it ! 

Now,  gentle  reader,  that  you  may  assure  yourself  on  these  points, 
ask  the  first  intelligent  Baptist  preacher  you  meet,  what  powers 
have  your  Associations  and  Conventions  over  the  Churches?  And 
he  will  answer  you,  none;  that  they  are  only  advisory  councils  of 
the  Churches  in  certain  hounds.  Then,  am  I  not  fully  vindicated  in 
saying  that  the  Baptist  Churches  present  to  the  eye  of  the  states- 
man, a  wide-spread  anarchy !  "^narcAy— Want  of  government;  a 
state  of  society  where  there  is  no  law  or  supreme  power,  or  where 
the  laws  are  not  efficient,  and  individuals  do  what  they  please  with 
impunity;  political  confusion."  Was  there  ever  anything  more  de- 
scriptive of  the  case  in  hand? 

In  conclusion:  what  has  Americanism  to  hope  for  from  a  Church 
with  such  antecedents  as  Munzer  and  his  crowd  of  marauders?  With 
such  living  offshoots  as  the  Menonites  and  the  Mormons?  With  such 
abhorrence  of  written  constitutions  that,  as  a  great  Chui'ch,  it  has 
none?  After  an  existence  of  more  than  two  hundred  years,  they 
still  have  none.  And  now  that  the  din  of  Fourierism,  Communism, 
&c.,  is  heard  in  all  our  borders,  is  it  not  right  that  we  shall  enquire 
who  is  on  the  side  of  good,  well  defined,  well  understood  civil  gov- 
ernment? Is  it  not  a  pity  that  Elder  Henderson  did  not  know  that 
he  lived  in  a  glass  house,  and  therefore  it  was  naughty  to  throw  stones? 
I  hope  he  will  patch  his  own  panes  awhile,  and  let  his  neighbors 
alone.  Let  me  assure  him,  and  all  his  sympathizers,  if  they  think 
they  can  demolish  Methodism,  I  hope  they  will  declare  war  in  due 
form,  not  cry  peace,  brother,  and  all  that,  when  the  malice  of  the 
old  serpent  is  in  the  heart.  For  the  present,  I  forbear,  hoping  that, 
for  the  sake  of  the  Christian  name,  we  will  not  be  compelled  to  give 
them  one  long,  loud,  general  thrashing. 

Very  respectfully, 

Summerjidd,  Alabama.  F.  G.  FERGUSON. 

The  Baptists,  "anti-American." 

We  notice  in  the  New  Orleans  Christian  Advocate  of  the  19th  ult., 
is  a  communication  signed  "F.G.Ferguson,"  bearing  the  above 
caption,  intended  as  a  counterpart  of  the  discussion  in  this  paper, 


APPENDIX.  35  Y 

between  Brother  Hamill  and  the  editor,  as  to  whether  the  Episcopal 
feature  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  Ecpublican  government. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  seems  to  bo  out  of  temper,  and  raves  lilje  a 
madman;  and  the  editor,  while  he  fears  that  in  some  general  remarlia 
his  brother  has  "  done  injustice  to  the  larger  miudcd  and  highly- 
honorable  portion  of  the  Baptist  Church,  by  visiting  on  them  indis- 
criminately the  offence  of  an  obscure  and  local  organ,"  yet  he  gives 
to  his  production  a  sort  of  qualified  endorsement.  "  He  has  shown, 
at  a  single  brush,  and  effectually,  Itou-  a  counter  charge  can  he  filed.'' 
All  very  well,  Bro.  McTiero.  The  Devil  himself  can  bring  "  a  rail- 
ing accusation"'  against  us;  but  can  he  prove  it?  We  say  he  can- 
not. AVe  challenge  1x)th  men  and  devils  to  prove  that  Baptist 
Churches,  founded  as  they  are  upon  the  written  constitution,  indit- 
ed 1)y  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  governing  themselves  accoidingly,  can, 
in  the  nature  of  their  constitution  and  Church  government,  when 
properly  administered,  contain  anything  inconsistent  with  the  purest 
and  holiest  principles  of  Republican  liberty. 

For  the  present,  we  shall  make  no  reply  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ferguson. 
We  insert  his  piece  in  our  paper  to  let  our  readers  sec  what  kind  of 
spirit  can  be  exhibited  by  those  who  arc  so  much  concerned  about 
the  Baptists  having  "purer  piety  and  truer  doctrines."  If  his  article 
is  a  specimen  of  the  truth,  purity,  and  p'e/y  which  are  hatched  by 
Episcopacy,  may  the  good  Lord  deliver  the  world  from  it  as  soon 
as  possible.  Mr.  Ferguson  was  for  many  years,  we  believe,  a  pre- 
siding elder  in  the  Alabama  Conference,  a  position  next  in  order  to 
the  bishop's  chair.  We  suppose,  therefore,  lie  may  fairly  represent 
Ihe  ratio  of  piety  and  rejiucmeut.  to  the  degree  of  promotion  in  the  sys- 
tem of  Episcopal  Methodism.  He  is  "going  on  to  perfection,"  (!) 
and  by  the  time  he  roaches  the  august  degree  of  bishop,  what  scin- 
tillations of  meekness,  ami  patience,  and  brotherly  kindness,  and 
charity,  will  flash  from  his  pen!  Perhaps,  however,  if  Mr.  Ferguson 
ba.^  not  already  attained  to  "  sinless  perfection,"  lie  ought  to  be  per- 
mitted to  claim  the  benefit  of  the  Apostolic  apology,  slightly  yaricd: 
"  It  18  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but"  JtJpiacopaci/  "  that  dwells  in  me." 

Wc  would  say  to  our  Methodist  clergymen  wlio  are  disposed  to 
make  war  on  us  for  daring  to  suggest  that  it  would  be  more  in  con- 
sonance with  Re[>ul<licanisin  to  let  the  governed  have  a  voice  in 


358  APPENDIX. 

their  ecclesiastical  councils,  in  making  their  laws,  &c.,  that  we 
should  be  greatly  obliged  in  return  for  any  respectful  articles,  sug- 
gesting improvements  in  the  Baptist  Churches.  The  Baptists  pro- 
fess to  be  an  improving,  progressive  people.  They  want  all  the 
light  they  can  obtain,  and  they  can  have  their  principles  discussed 
with  composure.  It  is  only  the  bigot  who  flies  into  a  passion,  when 
a  calm  argument,  couched  in  respectful  language,  is  dealt  against 
his  views.  Now,  brethren,  keep  cool.  Don't  abuse  us,  and  belch 
forth  ale-house  Billingsgate  in  response  to  solid  argument.  "  Come, 
let  us  reason  together."'  If  you  cannot  sustain  your  cause,  do  try 
and  maintain  the  spirit  of  Christians;  and  if  you  fail  in  this,  we  do 
hope  you  will  try  and  extend  to  us  the  common  courtesies  of  gentle- 
men. True,  we  may  have  touched  you  in  a  tender  point.  If  Epis- 
copacy is  shorn  of  her  mitre,  why,  then,  "  Othello's  occupation's 
gone."  But  while  we  shall  handle  you  with  gloves  off,  we  shall  try 
to  imitate  the  example  of  our  Master,  in  combating  error.  We  shall 
be  actuated  solely  by  the  desire  to  let  men  see  the  truth  and  em- 
brace it,  and  be  brought  to  the  enjoyment  of  that  "  liberty  where- 
with Christ  hath  made  them  free."  You  may  rely  upon  it,  your 
Church  polity  possesses  features  utterly  irreconcilable  with  Repub- 
lican liberty,  and  many  of  your  most  enlightened  members  have 
seen  it,  and  do  now  see  it.  "We  have  ventured  calmly  and  dispas- 
sionately, and  in  a  Christian  spirit,  to  point  out  some  of  these  fea- 
tures, and  you  come  back  at  us  with  hard  names — with  abuse— de- 
nouncing our  course  as  "  the  lowest  piece  of  ilemagogueism  and  nar- 
row-minded bigotry  that  has  yet  transpired,"  &c.  &c.  To  all  this  we 
make  no  reply — we  "  revile  not  again."  If  you  have  any  arguments, 
we  will  reply  to  them,  and  we  doubt  not  they  will  be  much  more 
highly  appreciated  by  the  great  mass  of  your  own  membership,  who 
will  have  the  light  on  this  subject,  whether  you  give  it  to  them  or 
not.  You  can  neither  frighten  us  by  abuse,  nor  terrify  us  by  your 
wholesale  denunciations,  from  going  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter. 
And  although  you  may  flatter  yourselves  that  the  talismanic  name 
of  '•  Methodist"  is  sufficiently  powerful  to  induce  your  membership 
to  withhold  a  strict  scrutiny  into  your  Church  polity,  you  are  great- 
ly mistaken.  The  eagle-eyed  genius  of  Republicanism  is  peering 
into  every  institution,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  secular,  and  where- 
evcr  she  detects  what  is  conceived  to  be  the  vestige  even  of  ty- 


APPENDIX.  359 

ranny,  or  a  want  of  conftrm'ty  lo  her  own  nature,  she  will  raise  the 
alarm,  and  her  votaries  will  speak  out — will  demand  a  discussion  of 
the  objectionable  feature.  Ilor  spirit  is  now  pervading  the  land, 
and  an  influence,  silent  as  the  dew,  yet  terrible  as  the  storm,  is  de- 
manding investigation  as  to  the  spirit  and  tendencies  of  unbridled 
ecclesiastical  power.  If  Episcopacy  is  right,  let  it  be  sustained; 
hut,  in  God's  name,  if  it  is  wrong,  let  it  be  exposed  and  abandoned. 
Believing,  as  we  do,  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  spirit  and  genius  of 
Democracy,  we  shall  manfully  maintain  our  ground.  Ilaviug  truth 
on  our  side,  we  feel  that  we  are  a  full  match  for  as  many  as  may 
come  against  us,  and  our  motto  shall  be — 

"  No  tyrant's  frown  shall  drive  ns  from  onrpost. 
We'll  fight  for  liberty,  alUioogh  against  a  host." 

In  conclusion,  we  would  say  to  Brother  Ferguson',  that  when  he 
and  his  brethren  conclude  to  give  us  the  threatened  "  long,  loud, 
general  thrashing,"  we  shall  be  there;  but  in  the  mean  time,  since  we 
have  our  net  set  for  larger  fish,  we  shall  allow  him  to  escape  with 
the  minnmcs. 

May  31st,  1855. 

The  editor  of  the  above  paper,  in  giving  a  qualified  endorsement 
to  Mr.  Ferguson's  communication,  after  denouncing  the  editor  of 
the  S.  W.  Baptist  as  gtiilty  of  "  the  lowest  piece  of  demagogucism 
that  has  yet  transpired,"  thus  assails  the  proprietor  of  the  Baptist: 

"  This  libel  comes  Avithout  the  palliation  of  ignorance,  from 
Judge  Chilton's  paper.  The  Supreme  Court  he  now  honors  with 
his  aliility  and  integrity,  was  honored  before  him  by  Collier,  Or- 
mond,  and  Goldthwaite,  than  which  Alabama  never  has  known  an 
abler  and  purer  bench.  Might  Judge  Chilton's  predecessors  not  be 
allowed  to  know  what  right  and  law  and  reason  were?  Migbt  they 
not  be  allowed  to  be  patriots  and  sound  Republicans  too?  Yet  they 
were  Methodists." — New  Orleans  Christian  Advocate. 

To  this,  we  replied  as  follows  : 

Good,  Brother  McTierc  !  Just  what  we  expected.  You  are  act- 
ing within  the  legitimate  Fcope  of  your  ecclesiasiieal  juriHliction 


360  APPENDIX. 

when  you  connect  Judge  Chilton  with  everything  you  esteem  odious 
in  the  publication  to  which  you  take  exception.  True,  the  Judge  had 
no  more  to  do  with  its  insertion  in  this  paper  than  you  had;  and  in 
the  same  number  in  which  it  appeared,  over  his  own  signature,  he 
stated  that  the  paper  was  taken  upon  his  shoulders,  in  invitum.  It  is 
also  true,  that  shortly  thereafter,  and  before  your  piece  above  re- 
ferred to  was  published,  the  Judge  had  disposed  of  the  press  to  the 
Alabama  Baptist  State  Convention,  and  has  no  more  to  do  with  its 
editorials  and  selections  than  yourself.  Yet,  my  good  Brother 
McTiere,  he  is  a  brother-in-law  to  your  Church,  and  has  for  years 
to  our  knowledge,  contributed  liberally  to  its  support — perhaps  as 
liberally  as  any  member  of  it  possessed  of  no  greater  means,  and  he 
is,  therefore,  clearly  within  the  reach  of  your  ecclesiastical  lash. 
We,  therefore,  say,  "  Lay  on  Mc Tiere."  We  do  not  think,  how- 
ever, you  should  require  the  Judge,  or  any  of  your  readers  to  adopt 
your  conclusion,  that  because  Judges  Collier,  Ormond  and  Gold- 
thwaite  were  all  excellent  jurists  and  pure  patriots  as  well  as  pious, 
consistent  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  ergo,  a  gov- 
ernment by  the  clergy  of  that  Church  is  as  Republican  in  its  struc- 
ture and  tendencies,  as  a  government  by  the  membership.  This  is 
such  an  obvious  non  sequiter,  that  should  the  Judge  adopt  it  as  a 
specimen  of  sound  reasoning,  we  think  he  should  quit  the  bench 
and  seek  an  assistant  editorship  of  the  Advocate  with  you;  for  in 
so  doing,  he  would  find  a  kindred  logician.  The  exhaustion  conse- 
quent upon  the  mental  process  of  evolving  such  stern  logic  would 
evidently  require  sympathy.  But  in  all  seriousness,  we  are  bold  to 
say,  that  if  either  of  the  gentlemen  above  alluded  to,  is  so  obtuse  of 
intellect  or  dull  of  apprehension,  as  not  to  be  able  to  sec  that  a 
government  by  the  clergy,  M'hose  action  cannot  be  controlled  by 
the  governed,  is  as  purely  Republican  in  its  structure  and  tenden- 
cies as  a  government  by  the  governed  themselves — he  may  make  a 
good  Episcopal  Methodist  we  grant — but  he  could  lay  no  claim 
either  to  Republicanism  or  Democracy. 

Texas  Chrtsti.vn  Advocate. 

The  following  article  appeared  in  the  above  paper,  of  the  30th 
June,  1855.    It  is  needless  to  add  that  our  reply  to  it  was  never 


\  APPENDIX.  361 

publlsbed  in  tbat  paper.  la  responding  to  our  propot^ition  to  give 
him  '•  column  for  column/'  the  editor  replied  :  "  lie  [the  editor  of 
the  S.  W.  Baptist]  has  gained  the  victory  in  generosity, /or  we  really 
cannot  reciprocate.'^ 

From  the  Texas  Christian  Advocate. 

The  South  Western  Baptist  again. 

The  remarks  we  made  some  time  since,  in  declining  to  defend 
our  Apostolic  Itinerant  General  Superintendency  against  the  self- 
evidenlly  malicious  misrepresentations  of  the  South  Western  Bap- 
tist, seem  to  have  hurt  somebody  besides  the  editor  of  tliat  paper. 
We  regret  this,  as  we  had  not  intended  such  a  thing.  We  had  no 
intention  tiiat  our  remarks  should  be  construed  as  applying  to  the 
Baptist  Church  and  tlie  people;  for  we  are  far  from  believing  that, 
as  a  body,  they  sympathize  with  any  such  course.  Several  things 
confirm  us  in  thi.~  opinion.  The  correspondent  of  the  South  Western 
Ba2)tist,  whose  ire  has  been  kindled  l)y  our  remarks,  himself  admits 
that  the  editor  has  had  to  figlit  the  battle  in  whicn  be  lias  officiously 
involved  himself,  "  single-banded;"'  no  other  Baptist  "  editor  or 
contributor"  has  come  to  bis  rescue.  ^Ve  are  glad,  for  the  fellow- 
ship we  feel  (or  the  Baptist  Church,  and  for  the  honor  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity,  that  they  also  have  thus  "  frowned  upon  the  dis- 
courtesy.'' Again:  the  editor  of  the  South  Western  Baptist,  in  de- 
fending Judge  Chilton,  the  former  proprietor  of  the  paper,  against 
the  honest  indignation  naturally  aroused  by  this  uncalled  for  attack 
upon  a  sister  Church,  admits  that  he  bad  sold  it  to  the  Baptist  Con- 
vention. Why  was  this  done,  if  not  to  free  himself  from  responsi- 
bilities incurred  by  an  editor  whose  partizan  zeal  went  beyond  his 
knowledge  and  charity?  We  learned,  when  in  Tuskegee,  that  .Judge 
Chilton  did  not  approve  the  course  of  the  editor,  and  regretted  tho 
unhappy  controversy  that  had  been  generated  by  his  bitter  sectari- 
anism; his  selling  the  paper,  and  ba\lug  it  pulillsbcd,  confirms  the 
report.  We  repeat,  we  bad  not  intended  our  remarks  for  any  but 
the  editor,  because  we  did  not  regard  the  Ibiptlst  people  as  sympa- 
thizing wllb  blm.  We  therefore  regret  to  fuid.  In  bis  correspondent, 
another  who  takes  our  remarks  to  heart.  And  wc  cannot  avoid  en- 
couraging the  comforting  hope  tbat  the  correspondent  is  ri<>'  :in(.tlMr, 
but  that  the  "  twain  are  of  one  flesh." 


362  APPENDIX. 

But,  "  for  the  sake  of  illustration,"  we  will  consider  liim  for  the 
present,  as  he  represents  himself.  He  says,  "  We  wisely  decline  dis- 
cussing the  question."  We  agree  with  him;  we  think  it  one  of  the 
wisest  things  we  could  have  done,  because  the  Scriptures  admonish 
us  to  avoid  "  vain  jangliug,"  and  "  strifes  of  words;"  and  the  editor 
of  the  Baptist  deals  in  but  little  else  than  "words,"  and  "vain  and 
jangling"  ones  at  that.  But,  he  asks,  "  Why  allude  to  it  at  all?"  We 
reply,  because,  as  we  stated  in  our  former  article,  our  friends  in 
Tuskegee  had  requested  us  to  defend  them,  and  it  was  proper  for 
us  to  give  our  reasons  for  decliuing.  But  he  says:  •'  Our  subscrib- 
ers are  vitally  interested  in  the  subject."  Yes;  just  about  as  much 
as  the  South  is  in  the  hypocritical  doctrines  of  the  abolitionists, 
while  every  one  knows  that  they  are  actuated  by  a  dishonest  envy. 
He  says  we  have  made  "  statements  injurious  to  the  character  of  the 
editor  of  the  Baptist."  We  have  no  doubt  of  it,  and  are  sorry  for 
it;  but  we  could  not  help  it,  because  we  were  compelled  to  tell  the 
truth  on  him. 

But  the  burden  of  the  correspondent's  complaints  is,  that  we 
charged  the  editor  of  the  Baptist  with  being  inclined  to  controversy. 
A  beautiful  complaint,  indeed,  in  favor  of  a  man  who  has  in  sub- 
stance made  the  assertion  that  Methodists  are  degraded,  like  slaves, 
by  their  bishops,  and  who  has,  for  their  deliverance,  invoked  the  aid 
of  political  power!  But  our  remarks  on  that  point  explained  them- 
selves; they  concluded  as  follows:  "  Thus,  precious  revivals  of  re- 
ligion, in  which  the  different  denominations  have  been  engaged, 
have  been  made  to  degenerate  into  a  struggle  for  members, '  to  make 
a  fair  show  in  the  flesh;'  and  the  administration  of  the  solemn  sacra- 
ments of  the  gospel,  have  been  made  occasions  for  dernagogical  sec- 
tarian harrangues."  This  is  Mhat  we  said,  and  we  reiterate  it:  who 
will  deny  it? 

The  correspondent  says,  wc  "  would  not  have  dared  to  assert  in 
East  Alabama,  what  we  have  in  our  Texas  sheet."  Perhaps  not; 
we  might  have  been  afraid  of  this  correspondent,  who  is  so  daring 
as  to  get  behind  a  fictitious  name. 

The  correspondent  calls  upon  us  for  either  "  proof"  or  "  recanta- 
tion." For  proof  of  Mr.  Henderson's  partizau  proclivities,  we  refer 
to  almost  every  immersion  he  has  ever  performed,  and  almost  every 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  he  has  ever  administered,  and  ask 


APPENDIX.  363 

any  disiaterested  hearer  if  he  has  not,  in  nearly  every  instance, 
made  them  "  occasions  for  demagogical  sectarian  harrangues?" 

The  editor  himself  merits  a  few  words.  He  says  that  the  reason 
the  "  secular  press  frown  upon  his  discourtesy"  is,  that  they  are 
'•  subsidized  to  the  interest  of  Episcopacy!"  Let  us  try  him  by  his 
favorite  authority,  Webster,  and  we  will  find  that  "  subsidy"  means 
"  aid  in  money,"  and  to  "  subsidize"'  means  "  to  pay  a  subsidy  to." 
His  meaning,  then,  clearly  is,  that  the  secular  press  are  bribed  to 
maintain  the  interests  of  Episcopacy.  What  can  be  thought  of  the 
honedy,  to  say  nothing  of  the  piety  of  the  man  who  can  make  such 
a  statement? 

He  vehemently  denies  trying  to  take  advantage  of  the  present 
excitement  in  reference  to  the  power  of  the  Romish  Church,  to  ex- 
cite political  prejudice  against  the  Methodist  Church.  Men  are 
sometimes  hung  upon  circumstantial  testimony,  and  the  laws  and 
public  sentiment  maintain  its  necessity,  though  sometimes  an  innocent 
man  may  suflfer.  If  Mr.  Henderson's  life  depended  upon  his  proving 
his  innocence  in  this  case,  we  should  ask  an  enormous  sum  to  in- 
sure it. 

We  have  spoken  plainly,  .«onic  may  think  severely,  but  we  have 
honestly  deemed  it  demanded  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  The 
offence  is  not  against  the  Methodist  Church,  but  against  Christiaa 
charity,  and  against  the  interests  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  Mr.  Hen- 
derson tries  hard  to  assume  the  martyr;  but  such  afl'ectation  and 
egotism  are  ridiculous.  He,  the  champion  of  the  rights  of  more 
than  a  million  of  the  most  intelligent  people  in  the  United  States, 
and  who  have  more  power  over  the  character  of  their  Church  gov- 
ernment than  the  people  of  his  own  denomination  have  over  theirs! 
He,  who  holds  the  doctrine  thai  all  oilier  Christians  and  ministers 
than  those  of  his  own  denomirialiou,  are  uot  members  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  at  all!  He,  who  lends  the  influence  of  his  paper  to  the 
establishment  of  a  sectarian  IJible  !  He,  who  tries  to  make  a  "  Peter 
the  Hermit'"  of  bimsilf.  and  preach  a  crusade  against  what  his  ma- 
lignity styles  the  antl-Kepublican  power  of  liis  Episcopacy;  he,  with 
the  usual  consistency  of  fanatical  bigotry,  invites  the  attention  of 
"  the  politician  and  state-wiari'-  to  the  correction  of  the  evils  of  the  Me- 
thodist Church,  and  glories  in  his  fanciful  dreams  cf  the  lime  when 


364  APPENDIX. 

the  "eagle-eyed  geaius  of  Republicanism"  sliall  di'ive  them  away 
as  the  "  morning  cloud  and  the  early  dew." 

If  we  mistake  not,  this  is  the  same  man  who  once,  in  a  public  ad- 
dress, very  plainly  intimated  his  sympathy  with  the  idea  of  coercing 
South  Carolina,  should  she  attempt  to  secede  from  the  Union,  by 
the  Federal  arms. 

To  the  foregoing,  we  made  the  following  reply  : 
Texas  Christian  Advocate. 

The  Rev.  C.  C.  Gillespie,  who  is  known  to  some  of  our  readers, 
and  who  is  employed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  to  edit  the  above  paper,  has  published  more  than 
a  column  of  matter  in  his  issue  of  the  30th  ult.,  in  which  he  raves 
and  fumes,  and  says  a  great  many  hard,  unchristian  things  of  the 
editor  of  this  paper.  If  we  did  but  know  less  of  him  than  we  do, 
we  should  be  apprehensive  from  the  "  loud  thrashing  "  he  has  at- 
tempted to  administer  to  us,  that  we  had  provoked  the  ire  of  some- 
thing not  unlike  Job's  leviathan:  "  Behold  the  hope  of  him  is  in 
vain.  Shall  not  one  be  cast  down  at  the  sigld  of  Mm  ?  None  is  so  fierce 
that  rfare  stir  him  up:  icho  then  is  able  to  stand  before  him?  Job,  xli, 
9-10.  But  "  vox  et,"  J  Oil  know  the  rest,  reader.  How  impressively 
does  he  exhibit  the  "  beauties  of  our  Episcopacy,"  by  treating  his 
adversaries  with  scurrilous  nicknames  and  abuse ! — "  A  species  of 
reasoning,"  says  an  old  author,  "  which  seldom  succeeds  in  recom- 
mending a  bad  cause,  and  never  confers  credit  on  one  that  is  good." 
Now,  we  protest  that  we  are  sorry  to  see  our  brother  lose  his 
temper,  and  suffer  himself  to  deal  in  invective  and  personal  abuse 
of  a  brother  minister.  We  shall  not  imitate  his  example  ;  but 
our  charity  would  rather  plead  for  him  an  apology  which  will  rea- 
dily occur  to  the  mind  of  any  one,  at  all  versed  in  a  knowledge  of 
human  nature.  It  is  this:  He  belongs  to  the  Conference — he  is  one 
of  those,  whose  high  prerogative  as  a  member  of  an  ecclesiastical 
body,  it  is  to  make  laws,  to  administer  and  execute  those  laws — a 
body,  independent  of  the  people,  and  which  "  admits  no  constitu- 
ency." Such  a  position  very  natui'ally  tends  to  beget  in  weak 
minds,  a  haughty  and  imperious  disposition.    Hence,  they  cannot 


APPENDIX.  3G5 

brook  opposition.  Every  man  is  an  ignoramits,  if  he  does  not  see  as 
they  see — a  demagogue,  if  he  attempts  by  facts  and  arguments  to 
maintain  a  truth  which  to  them  is  unpalatable — and  a  bigot,  if  he  dare 
boldly  assert  his  belief,  and  the  grounds  of  it.  In  short,  our  brother 
is  like  a  spoiled  child.  His  ecclesiastical  position  has  accustomed 
him  to  the  luxury  of  having  his  own  way  so  long,  that  he  has  no 
patience  with,  nor  toleration  for  an  opponent.  He  will  abuse,  but 
he  would  not  reason  if  ue  could.  We  are  sorry  for  him,  and  lament 
the  exhaustion  he  has  brought  on  himself  by  squirming  to 'keep 
from  discussing  a  plain,  simple  issue  which  truth  forces  upon  him, 
but  which  he  is  powerless  to  meet.  We  are  afraid,  too,  that  our 
brother  will  suffer  his  uneasy  position  to  bring  on  a  mental  idiosyn- 
cracy,  which  is  much  to  be  deplored,  and  of  which  his  pieces  with 
reference  to  ourself  furnish  evident  symptoms,  viz  :  That  condition 
of  mind  which  makes  one  "  draw  upon  his  fancy  for  his  fuels,  and  his 
memory  for  his  arguments.'' 

As  we  wish  to  do  every  man  full  justice,  and  to  have  none  of  our 
readers  condemn  Brother  Gillespie  unheard,  we  insert  his  piece  in 
to-day's  paper.  lie  dare  not  do  us  this  justice,  if  he  has  the  chris- 
tian magnanimity  to  do  it.  He  has  condemned  us  and  our  articles, 
which  we  aflirm  have  been  written  in  a  christian  spirit,  in  an  unof- 
fending style,  and  with  the  highest  regard  to  truth  and  Christian  pro- 
priety. He  has  abused  us  personally  in  his  columns,  and  yet  has 
never  done  us  (he  justice  to  insert  one  of  our  articles.  This  is  truly  a.  precious 
specimen  of  that  liberal,  magnanimous  Christian  spirit,  which  character- 
izes "our  Episcopacy.-'  Now,  brother  Gillespie,  don't  wear  yourself 
out  scampering  through  the  brush  and  sloughs  to  get  a  position 
where  you  "  can  fue  ^upou  us  in  the  rear.''  Come  out  like  a  man, 
a  bold  Christian  man,  and  meet  us  face  to  face,  if  you  wish  a  con- 
troversy with  us.  Let  us  give  each  column  for  column  in  our  re- 
spective papers,  and  we  then  defy  your  assaults.  If  you  are  unwill- 
ing to  do  this,  then  stop  your  abuse  of  us — not  that  you  can  liurt 
us  with  tiiose  who  know  us;  but  you  may  create  false  impressions 
in  the  mimls  of  your  own  people  who  road  your  pajjcr,  from  the 
columns  of  wliich  you  carefully  exclude  our  view.^.  If  you  will  ac- 
cede to  neither  of  these  propositions,  we  shall  shape  our  future 
course  to  meet  fully  tlic  emergency.  Don't  let  any  aiiprehonsion 
that  the  public  will  think  that  you  and  Brother  Ilamill,  both  on 
32 


366  APPENDIX. 

your  side,  will  be  cro-wding  us:  not  at  all.  We  had  rather  meet 
a  dozen  open,  manly,  kind  spirited  Christian  antagonists,  like  Brother 
Uamill,  who  contends  for  what  he  believes  in  a  proper  sph-it,  than 
one  who  fires  upon  us  from  swamps  and  morasses — who  will  not 
face  his  opponent,  nor  give  him  the  opportunity  of  self-defence. 
Why  not  make  up  your  mind  to  come  out  and  give  us  fair  play  in 
your  columns,  as  we  do  you  in  ours?  Is  there  nothing  significant 
in  this  ?  We  understand  you,  Brother  Gillespie.  You  very  well 
know  if  Brother  Hamill,  whose  intellect  towers  far  above  yours,  is 
unable  to  prove  that  Methodist  Epi&eopacy  embodies  the  democratic 
principle  of  our  government,  it  would  be  worse  i/um  useless  for  you  to 
undertake  it.  Hence,  you  stand  ofl"  and  Uack-lall  I  For  very  shame, 
brotlier,  wash  your  hands  and  quit  it.* 

We  should  be  glad  if  our  duty  ended  with  these  fair  propositions, 
and  this  wholesome  admonition  ;  but  lejt  our  brother  should  con- 
strue our  silence  into  a  tacit  admission  of  his  charges,  we  venture 
to  set  him  I'ight  on  some  of  hie/arfs  and  insinuations.  Never  before 
have  we  been  called  upon  to  review  an  article,  which,  to  its  length, 
abounds  in  so  many  statements,  which  in  the  mild  language  of  di- 
plomacy, '•  are  entirely  inexact."  We  do  not  say  that  they  are  a  sug- 
geslio  falsi,  or  even  a  suppressio  vcri — but  we  do  say,  that  they  are — 
"  entirely  inexact." 

Fi7-st,  then,  Brother  Gillespie's  opening  paragraph  alleges  that  he 
declines  "  to  defend  our  Apostolic  Itinerant  General  Supei'intend- 
ency  against  the  self-cvidently  malicious  misrepresentations  of  the 
South  AVestern  Baptist,"  &c.  Now,  we  appeal  to  every  article  we 
have  written,  and  to  every  person  who  has  read  them,  whether  we 
have  ever  attacked  the  "itinerancy"  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  AVe  have  been  discussing  the  isolated  topic  of  Episcopacy, 
as  we  have  time  and  again  alleged.  Our  worthy  antagonist  in  this 
discussion.  Brother  Hamill,  admits  "  that  the  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Church  in  England  has  no  bishops,  and  yet  appoint  their  ministers 
upon  the  '  itinerant  plan '  just  as  we  (the  Methodists)  do.  And, 
moreover,  our  Protestant  Methodist  brethren  in  our  own  land,  have 
no  bishops,  and  have  lay  delegations  to  the  fullest  possible  extent, 
and  they  also  appoint  ministers  to  their  charges  upon  the  itinerant 

*  See  Appendix  No.  1. 


X  APPENDIX.  367 

plan."  Sec  his  second  letter.  To  which  we  responded,  that  "Pres- 
byterians, CongregatioQalists,  Baptists,  and  many  others,  have 
adopted  the  [itinerant]  plan  wherever  and  whenever  the  exigency 
demanded."'  We  furthermore  "  protested  that  Episcopacy  is  not 
entitled  to  the  credit  of  that  which  is  common  to  all  forms  of  Church 
government;  and  that  any  argument  based  upon  such  an  assump- 
tion, can  prove  no  more  for  Episcopacy,  than  for  Presbyterial  or 
Congregational  government."  "Entirely  inexact,"  Brother  Gilles- 
pie. Whether  your  "  misrepresentations  "  are  '■  sclf-evidently  mali- 
cious," is  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader. 

Secondly.  It  is  affirmed  that  we  have  no  sympathy  from  our  own 
denomination!  Great  mistake,  brother.  Every  Baptist  Church  on 
this  continent,  or  on  this  green  earth,  is  a  living  protest  against  Episco- 
pacy. The  Baptists  are  a  people  who  love  the  truth,  and,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  hail  with  satisfaction  all  discussions  properly  conduct- 
ed which  elicit  it.  Hence,  it  never  "confuses  them,"  as  evidently 
you  think  it  would  your  readers,  "  to  hear  both  sides."  For  this 
reason  we  publish  both  sides — which  you  arc  afraid  to  do,  as  we 
slirewdly  suspect. 

Thirdly.  Judge  Chilton,  the  proprietor,  condemned  our  course,  and 
this  you  learned  when  you  were  here  !  But  it  so  happens,  that  when 
you  were  here,  tee  Itad  not  jiullished  our  first  article  on  the  subject,  and 
consequently  "  our  course"  could  not  have  been  condemned  by  him. 
We  understood  that  he  expressed  his  regret  that  the  article  from  the 
Watchman  had  been  copied  into  the  paper,  as  it  contained  an  inti- 
mation that  the  Episcopal  element  in  the  Methodist  Church  should 
1)C  made  a  questiou  at  the  ballot  box — an  idea  which  we  expressly 
repudiated  in  our  paper  as  soon  as  our  attention  was  called  to  it. 

Fourthli/.  But  th  ?  Judge  sold  out  to  avoid  ''  the  honest  indignation  (.'.') 
naturally  aroused  by  this  uncalled  for  attack  upon  a  sister  Church!" 
"  Entirely  ine.xact"  again.  Brother  Gillespie,  as  every  member  of  (he 
Convention  can  testify.  Ilis  reasons  were  freely  given  (o  that  body 
in  an  address,  in  which  he  stated  that  his  time  was  wholly  occupied 
with  ofTicial  duti  b,  and  that  he  could  not  bestow  the  attention  upon 
the  paper,  as  proprietor,  essential  to  its  success;  that  tlie  denomina- 
tion ought  to  own  it,  as  it  would  enlist  their  patronage,  and  be  a 
eonrcc  of  profit  to  their  benevolent  entcrprizes;  an<l  tliat  he  waa 
ready  to  make  some  sacrifice  to  induce  the  Convention  to  take  it,  &.c. 


368  APPENDIX.  y 

The  Conventioa  accepted  the  in'oposal,  and  appointed  a  committee 
to  raise  the  funds.  Thus  the  matter  stands.  The  "  indignation" 
part  is  all  on  the  side  of  "  our  Episcopacy" — ^just  such  indignation 
as  the  "  Declaration  of  Independence'*  awakened  iu  the  British  Ca- 
binet and  Parliament  in  '76.  Not  the  first  time,  by  several,  Bro. 
Gillespie,  that  truth  has  made  certain  persons  indignant. 

Fifthly.  Then  we  were  so  bad  off  for  sympathy,  that  we  wrote  a 
letter*  to  ourself,  in  answer  to  our  brother's  assault  upon  us — at 
least  he  "  cannot  avoid  encouraging  the  comforting  hope,  that  the 
correspondent  is  not  another,  but  that  the  '  twain  are  one  flesh.'  " 
This  insinuation  is  utterly  untrue — "  entirely  inexact,"  we  mean — 
and  our  brother  had  no  foundation  for  making  it,  except  in  so  far 
as  the  "  wish  was  father  to  the  thought."  We  assure  him  that  we 
have  as  much  sympathy  as  we  desire  in  our  course.  But  if  we  were 
as  destitute  as  he  supposes  we  are,  we  should  need  no  sympathy  to 
sustain  us.  We  are  idling  the  truth,  and  maintaining  it  for  the  love  of 
it.    Our  conscience,  therefore,  fully  sustains  us,  and 

*'  One  self-approving  hour  whole  years  t  ntweighs 
Of  slapid  ilarers,  or  of  loud  huzzahs." 

Thrown  upon  this  resource  for  comfort,  our  brother,  Gillespie,  would 
doubtless  need  "  setting  up  with." 

Sixthly.  But  ours  is  "  vain  jangling" — "  strifes  of  words,  and  vain 
ones  at  that."  Hence.  Brother  Gillespie  cannot  condescend  to  reply !  ! 
Yet  we  say,  we  have  made  honest  eflbrts  to  argue  a  very  important 
question;  and  your  betters,  brother,  have  treated  us  as  really  argu- 
ing, and  have  replied  time  and  again  to  our  arguments.  So  that  we 
cannot  tell  which  ought  to  feel  most  mortified  at  your  strictures  on 
this  part  of  the  subject — we,  or  our  worthy  Brother  Hamill.  How- 
ever, it  is  likely  both  of  us  will  survive  them. 

Seventhly.  You  say,  we  "  have  in  substance  made  the  assertion 
that  Metliodists  are  degraded  like  slaves,  by  their  bishops,"  and  that 
'■  for  their  deliverance,  we  have  invoked  the  aid  of  politicrd power.''  We 
have  said  nothing  to  this  effect.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  express- 
ly repudiated  the  aid  of  political  power  iu  this  contest,  averring  in 


*  Tlie  article  of  "Amicus  Justitia;,"  to  which  the  editor  refers,  is  inserted  at  the  close 
of  this  Appendi.'!,  No.  2. 


APPENDIX.  3G9 

so  many  words,  "  that  wc  fight  Episcopacy  wUh  no  such  weapons."  Bap- 
tists hare  always  maintaiaed,  that  wbere  the  dominion  of  the  con- 
science begins,  in  religious  matters,  the  dominion  of  the  secular 
power  ends.  No,  Brother  Gillespie;  we  wish  to  reason  with  you  and 
your  people,  whom  we  love.  This  and  the  '\^^rd  of  God  are  our 
only  weapons.  We  desire  to  handle  them  in  the  Spirit  of  our  Mas- 
ter. Believing  that  the  time  will  come,  which  is  plainly  predicted, 
we  think,  when  a  mighty  struggle  is  to  be  made  by  prelacy  to  grasp 
in  its  mighty  arms  the  secular  power,  we  should  rejoice  to  see  our 
brethren  of  all  denominations,  not  only  cultivating  a  spirit  of  unity, 
but,  by  times,  encouraging  the  infusion  into  their  membership  of 
the  great  fundamental  truth  which  underlies  the  entire  superstruc- 
ture of  our  Republican  institutions,  to  wit:  that  the  membership, 
and  not  the  clergy,  constitute  the  legitimate  source  of  all  ecclesiastical 
power,  which  Christ  has  ever  delegated  to  mortal  agencies,  as  in  our 
civil  government  ■'  all  power  is  inherent  in  the  people."    Yours,  sir, 

IS  TUE  ONLY  PrOTK-TANT  ChLRCU  0.\  THIS  CONTINENT,  SO  FAR  AS  WE 
KNOW,  WHOSE  ECCLESIASTICAL  COUNCILS  "  ADMIT  NO  CONSTITUENTS''  BUT 

BISUOPS  AND  TKAVELLIXG  CLERGY — from  whose  governvicntal  economy  lay- 
men are,  by  constitutional  law,  expressly  excluded!  Even  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  in  adapting  its  government  to  our  free  in- 
stitutions, incorporated  lay  rqtresentation  in  its  councils  as  one  of  its 
organic  laws. 

Wc  are  truly  sorry  that  Brother  Gillespie  has  made  the  charge 
against  us,  that  we  have  "  invoked  the  aid  of  political  power  against 
the  Mcthodiijts."  We  should  be  glad  could  we  furnish  him  room  to 
escape,  even  in  part,  by  the  palliation  of  mistake.  Our  articles  are 
before  the  public,  and  so  is  his,  and  wc  fearlessly  invite  the  strictest 
scrutiny,  and  are  willing  to  abide  the  result. 

Eighthly.  Our  esteemed  correspondent,  "  Amicus  Justitia^,"  as- 
Burcd  Brother  Gillespie,  that  lie  was  altogether  mistaken  when  he 
represented  in  his  first  article,  that  the  editor  of  this  paper's  "  want 
of  aii/'ccs*  m/x/.v/ controversies,  in  which  lie  had  involved  himself, 
may  be  pleaded  as  another  excuse  for  his  belligerent  demonstrations. 
Some  of  these /(/lYurea  were  quite  mortifying,"  &c.  Our  correspon- 
dent informed  Brother  (Jillesple,  that  the  editor  of  the  Baptist  never 
bad  been  engagid  in  any  controverny  with  any  denomination  cnter- 
tainiug  diU'ereut  views  from  the  Baptists,     To  this,  our  contcmpo- 


310  APPENDIX. 

rary  replies,  that  "  we  have  made  the  administration  of  the  sacra 
ments  occasions  for  demagogical  harangues!"  Was  ever  subterfuge 
more  transparent?  We  have  been  an  humble  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel about  fifteen  years.  Within  that  period,  we  have  preached  five 
times  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Baptism — an  average  of  once  in 
three  years.  We  have  been  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  Tuske- 
gee  nearly  nine  years,  and  have  preached  one  sermon  in  that  Church, 
on  Baptism.  And  yet,  "  want  of  success  in  past  controversies,"  and 
frequent  "  failures"  have  rendered  us  quite  '"  belligerent!" 

But  we  have  seized  upon  occasions  of  "  administering  the  solemn 
sacraments  for  demagogical  harangues."  We  have,  on  some  such 
occ»siQp%  as  is  the  custom  with  all  ministers  of  all  denominations, 
read  some  of  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  refer  to  these  ordi- 
nances, and  explained  them  to  the  people  in  a  plain,  unostentatious 
way.  But  we  never  dreamed,  when  we  were  reading  and  comment- 
ing upon  the  Word  of  God,  at  the  "  water  side,"  or  at  the  "  table  of 
the  Lord," — passages  in  which  it  is  said  :  "  We  are  hitried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death" — that  "  we  are  planted  together  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death" — that  Christ  "was  baiJtized  of  John  in  Jordan" 
— that  "  they  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  baptized  him" — that  "  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
Apostles'  doctrine,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,"  &c.;  we  say,  we  never 
dreamed  that  we  were  making  a  "  demagogical  harangue,"  any 
more  than  when  engaged  in  the  discussion  of  any  other  New  Testa- 
ment doctrine  or  precept.  If  this  be  dcmagogism,  then  has  our  bro- 
ther convicted  the  Apostles  of  our  Saviour  of  making  "  demagogical 
harangues;"  for,  ordinarily,  we  but  repeat  what  they  said.  If  this 
constitutes  demagogism,  where  is  the  minister  of  the  gospel  who  is 
not  a  demagogue  ?  For  shame.  Brother  Gillespie;  forbear  such  ex- 
pressions. Did  you,  sir,  ever  make  any  of  these  "  demagogical  sec- 
tarian harangues?" 

Ninthly.  But  we  have  said  that  some  of  the  secular  presses  have 
been  subsidized  to  the  interest  of  "  our  Episcopacy."  Brother  Gil- 
lesj)ie  says  we  meant  they  were  bribed;  and  putting  this  language  into 
our  mouth,  a  word  we  neither  said  nor  meant,  he  exclaims  with  evi- 
dent satisfaction;  "  What  can  be  said  of  the  honesty,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  piety  of  the  man  who  can  make  such  a  statement?"  We  sup- 
pose everybody  but  our  brother  understood  us  to  mean,  that  these 


APPENDIX.  S-jl 

secular  presses'whicli  •were  committed  to  this  Church  polity,  were 
subordinated,  or  subsidiary  to  it.  As  to  our  honesty,  we  have  endea- 
vored so  to  live  as  to  obtain  "  a  good  report."'  Bro.  Gille.«pie  and 
ourself  have  lived  years  in  the  same  place,  and  -we  humbly  submit 
to  the  judgment  of  that  community  to  determine  that  delicate  ques- 
tion. He  could  not  well  have  said  a  harder  thing  concerning  us, 
even,  if  being  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  we  had  been  found  loafering 
about  the  taverns  and  post-ofiSce  of  our  village,  engaged  in  idle 
games  of  drafts,  backgammon,  &c.  No,  brother,  we  can  say  with 
the  Scottish  bard : 

"  Ood  knows  I'm  not  llie  tiling  I  would  be. 
Nor  am  1  even  llie  thing  I  could  be, 
But  twenty  times  1  rather  had  be 

An  Aihebt  clean. 
Than  nnder  gospel  colors  hid  be. 

Just  for  a  screen." 

Tentlily.  We  "  wish  to  take  advantage  of  the  present  excitement 
in  polities'-  to  link  Methodist  Episcopacy  with  Roman  Catholic  pre- 
lacy. This  wo  have  positively  denied.  We  are  discussing  a  ques- 
tion which  has  nothing  to  do  with  that  subject,  any  further  tlian  Me- 
thodist editors  themselves  shall  link  it  with  Catholicism.  AVe  sub- 
mit, too,  that  our  brother  is  a  little  inconsistent  with  himself,  when 
in  one  sentence  he  says  •'  we  have  invoked  the  aid  of  political 
power,"  and  in  another,  that  "we  vehemently  deny  trying  to  do 
this."  If  our  life  should  ever  be  put  in  jeopardy,  we  think  we  have 
a  little  too  much  common  sense  to  apply  to  '•  our  Episcopacy"  for 
an  '•  insurance." 

ElevenUdy.  We  lend  "  the  influence  of  our  paper  to  the  establishment 
of  a  sectarian  Bllde,"  IIow  our  brother  could  make  this  assertion 
in  the  face  of  all  our  articles  taking  ground  against  the  cnterprizo 
alluded  to,  and  wlien,  from  first  to  last,  he,  and  everybody  who  is 
acquainted  with  our  course,  knows  that  we  have  opposed  it,  is  the 
most  remarkable  of  all  the  extraordinary  charges  lie  brings  against 
U8.  We  have  admitted  communications  into  our  columns  upon  both 
sides  of  the  revision  movement,  a  Diing  which  we  believe  tlic  sheets 
of  "  our  Epi.scopacy"  never  do.  And  yet,  if  this  is  the  ground  of 
the  charge,  we  submit  that  our  brother  can  convict  us  of  "  lending 
the  influence  of  our  paper  to  the  establishment  of  "   E]>isc«q)iil  Me- 


S^2  APPENDIX. 

tliodism,  because  we  publisli  Brother  Hamill's,  liis>  and  Brother  Fer- 
guson's articles  on  that  side  of  the  question. 

Twelfthly.  But  we  assume  to  be  a  martyr,  &c.  Not  so;  not  an  arrow 
levelled  at  us  has  reached  the  mark.  Slain  ijj  such  a  cause  as  this, 
and  by  such  an  antagonists  as  you,  Brother  Gillespie  ! !  Why,  the 
tale  of  such  a  martyrdom  would  be  as  ridiculous  as  the  nursery  story 
of  Tom  Thumb's  exploit  of  stabbing  the  humble  bee  with  his  mam- 
ma's darning  needle ! 

Thirtcenthly.  It  is  further  alleged,  that  in  "  a  public  address,  we 
intimated  our  sympathy^  with  the  idea  of  coercing  South  Carolina, 
should  she  attempt  to  secede  from  the  Union !"  How  very  guarded  ! ! 
To  intimate  merely,  and  to  intimate  a  sympathy,  too,  and  that  with 
an  idea ! !  It  reminds  us  of  a  certain  motion  a  plain,  unlettered 
man  once  made  in  a  public  meeting,  that  "  They  end-cc-vor  to  make 
an  effort  to  tryP^  Give  us  chapter  and  verse — the  time  when,  and 
the  place  where,  and  we  will  place  this  charge  in  the  same  category 
with  all  the  foregoing. 

We  are  a  Southern  man  by  birth,  sympathy,  interest,  and  prin- 
ciple. The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  expounded  by  such 
men  as  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Jackson,  is  our  political  text-book. 
If  they  were  not  Republicans,  we  would  be  glad  our  brother  would 
correct  public  history  and  set  us  right. 

Fourteenthly.  In  his  first  article,  he  characterized  our  course  in  this 
discussion,  as  being  a  "  denvigogical  appeal  to  jiolitical  prejudices," 
and  in  his  present  article,  he  avers,  as  above  stated,  that  we  make 
"  demagogical  sectarian  harangues,"  «fec.  We  suppose  demagogical, 
(a  word  of  Brother  Gillespie's  coining)  is  derived  from  demagogue, 
which  signifies  a  "  leader  of  the  people;  an  orator  who  pleases  the 
populace,"  &c.  And  yet  he  is  "  far  from  believing  that,  as  a  body, 
they  (th%  Baptists)  sympathize  with  any  such  course"  as  we  are  pur- 
suing !  A  demagogue,  and  yet  we  have  not  the  sympathy  of  our 
own  denomination !  "  Pleasing  the  populace,"  by  exciting  their 
"  honest  indignation ! !  "  "  Leading  the  people,"  and  yet  they 
"  fi'own  upon  tiie  discourtesy ! !" 

But  we  cannot  take  up  more  space  in  alluding  to  other  misrepre- 
sentations, as  "  entirely  inexact"  as  any  of  the  foregoing,  with  which 
his  piece  abounds.  We  commend  him  to  more  charity,  and  a  more 
sacred  regard  for  doing  justice  to  his  neighbor. 


APPENDIX.  3T3 

TTe  conclude  by  congratulating  our  worthy  correspondent  "  Ami- 
cus Justitia?,"  on  the  success  which  has  attended  the  treatment  of 
his  first  patient.  If  the  amount  of  bile  his  first  portion  has  evoked, 
Is  any  just  criterion  by  which  to  judge,  then  '•  our  Episcopacy"  must 
be  deplorably  sick.  We  beg  him,  as  early  as  possible,  if  the  symp- 
toms will  allow  it,  to  administer  an  anodyne,  lest  the  nausea  should 
become  chronic,  and  the  disease  should  prove/atoL' 


No.  1. 

For  the  South  Western  Baptist. 

"If  Metiiodists  are  satisfied  with  tueir  government,  why 
should  others  care  ?" 

Bro.  Henderson  : 

Occasionally  the  above  interrogatory  has  been  suggested,  if  not 
propounded. 

With  your  consent,  I  propose  to  remark  a  little.  And  first,  I 
think  Baptists  should  "  care,"  and  in  this  Republican  country,  'tis 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  everybody  should  care.  The  wonder  to 
me  is,  that  so  many  care  so  little  about  it.<  Vigilance  and  care 
should  characterize  every  citizen.  Baptists  have  always  been  in 
the  foremost  against  oppression,  both  in  civil  an  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernments; for  they  have  been  the  sufferers,  and  no  wonder  they  care 
now  at  the  approach  of  danger  from  any  quarter. 

As  to  the  feature  of  Methodism  most  to  he  cared  about,  you  have 
recently  exhibited  to  us  in  your  discussion  with  Mr.  Ilamill.  But, 
Brother  Henderson,  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  most  to  Vie  dreaded  and 
deprecated  on  future  generations — our  children  and  their  children. 
Children  think  mostly  as  their  parents  think,  and  especially  In  re- 
ligious afl'alrs  Some  think,  to  diw-ard  their  father's  baptism  would 
be  sacrilege,  though  submitted  to  In  Infancy,  and  that,  too,  by  sprink- 
ling; so  I  do  not  wonder  that  Pedoism  dies  so  tardily.  And  they 
think,  too,  that  Churches  are  very  sacred  things,  and  arc  holy,  and 
of  course,  after  "  God's  own  heart;"  but  how  sadly  it  is  to  the  con- 
trary. Even  Apostolic  Churches,  I  mean  their  members,  were  not 
perfect,  not  entirely  holy.  Let  parents  tamely  submit  to  be  taxed 
v/it^oul  representation,  and  so  I  understand  Metiiodist  Episcopacy, 


374  APPENDIX. 

for  a  generation  or  two  more,  I  predict  our  Republican  country  will 
have  verged  much  towards  an  aristocracy,  if  not  a  monarchy.  I 
fear  Methodist  Episcopacy  more  in  this  country  than  Romanism.  I 
know  even  good  Methodist  brethren  have  no  such  fears;  but  have 
they  considered  well  their  Episcopacy  ?  (this  feature  in  their  system 
which  malies  some  of  their  rulers  so  arrogant,)  I  think  not.  And  I 
think  they,  or  many  of  them,  are  very  careful  and  anxious  to  keep 
their  people  from  any  investigation  of  the  subject.  Witness  their 
general  refusal  to  publish  in  their  papers — their  Advocates — anything 
against  their  Episcopacy.  I  can  hardly  believe  your  good  brother, 
Hamill,  was  apprised  how  vulnerable  his  Episcopacy  was,  or  his  en- 
dorsers, even,  or  they  would  not  have  risked  the  discussion.  I  be- 
lieve they  are  good  Christians,  and  I  hope,  for  our  country,  they 
will  in  some  way  get  clear  of  Episcopacy.  I  know  many  Methodists 
are  as  true  Republicans  as  any  in  the  world. 

But,  Brother  Henderson,  what  of  those  missiles  of  mud  and  slan- 
der, some  time  since  aimed  at  your  character,  from  a  few  points  of 
this  Episcopal  hierarchy? — I  mean  those  courteous  gentlemen, 
Messrs.  Gillespie  and  Ferguson,  especially?  I  think,  however, 
you  have  given  him  (Gillespie)  a  life-time  dose.  I  wish  it  may 
work  out  his  sanctification.  The  other  madman,  Ferguson — Rev. 
Ferguson,  I  am  told — how  he  raved;  "  I  reckon  he  thought  his  craft" 
was  in  danger;  nice  preacher,  he.  Ain't  you.  Brother  Henderson, 
afraid  of  his  threatened  "  long,  loud,  general  thrashing?"  But  I 
recollect  you  did  give  him  a  small  passing  notice,  and  this  vaunting 
divine  is  no  more.  Baptists  have  stood  the  roar  of  cannon,  and  will 
they  now  fly  the  braying  of  asses  ? 

I  would  say  to  Messrs.  Gillespie  and  Ferguson,  Iceep  dark  before 
your  people;  don't  toll  them  anything  about  Episcopacy,  its  mean- 
ing and  design;  and  never  what  Mr.  Wesley  said  to  Messrs.  Coke 
and  Asbury,  about  a  bishop;  no  never,  for  Methodist  independence 
is  not  yet  entirely  extinct. 

Brother  Henderson,  can  there  be  more  than  one  out  of  ten  Me- 
thodists, who  understand  their  own  government,  or  the  position  they 
occupy  ?  No  part  in  the  government,  but  their  lot  "  is  to  pay  their 
money,  and  k(!cp  the  wheel  in  motion."  But,  Brother  Henderson, 
I  hear  that  some  have  thought  that  Mr.  McTiere,  of  New  Orleans, 
should  have  been  your  man  on  Episcopacy.  I  had  understood  that 
Mr.  Hamill  was  their  star;  and  if  I  were  to  guess,  1  should  say  he 


APPENDIX.  315 

was  as  bright  a  star  as  they  could  have  gtarted  in  this  country.  Wc 
believe  him  a  good  man,  and  talented;  but  would  truth  have  been 
less  potent,  directed  to  Mr.  McTiere?  I  think  not.  Some  persons 
have  a  wonderful  tact  of  shifting  responsibility,  and  changing  one 
character  for  another.  If  the  brilliancy  of  their  choice  seem  to 
wane  in  the  least,  they  have  a  greater  star  somewhere  else.  "Well, 
let  them  try  their  McTiere.  Mr.  Hamill  and  yourself,  I  learn,  are 
yet  on  friendly  terms;  that  you  visit  each  other,  and  fraternize  free- 
ly. Well,  this  is  right  and  proper  between  Christian  brethren.  I 
believe  you  both  have  too  much  religion  and  good  sense  to  quarrel 
and  hate  each  other,  because  you  differ  on  some  points  of  Church 
polity  or  Christian  faith.  Not  so  with  Messrs.  Gillespie  and  Fergu- 
son, and  perhaps  some  others. 

But,  Brother  Henderson,  I  must  insist  on  your  teaching  Ferguson, 
especially,  that  Baptist  Churches  have  a  government,  and  no  Epis- 
copacy about  it;  that  ours  is  a  scriptural  Repuljlican  government. 
But  I  doubt  whether  he  wishes  to  come  to  the  light  on  that  subject, 
or  is  susceptible  even  of  comprehending  it — so  engrossed  and  con- 
cerned about  his  dear  Episcopacy.  B. 

August  30th,  1855. 

No.  2. 

FoT  the  South  Western  Baptist. 

TuE  Methodist  press  beligiocs  and  secitlab. 

Since  the  commencement  of  the  war  on  the  question  of  Episcopa- 
cy, the  editor  of  the  Baptist  has  contended  fiinglo-handed  against 
the  combined  forces  of  Mcthodii-ni.  lie  has  not  only  di.-^cliargcd  his 
volleys— and  deadly  ones  they  have  been  —  against  the  regular 
army  drawn  out  upon  the  field,  but  has  had  to  combat  the  guerilla 
scjuads  of  cditorH  and  correspoiidi-iits  of  Methodist  "Advocates"  and 
Mclhfjdizeil  secular  presses,  wlio  nislH.d  to  (lie  rescue  of  their  chcr- 
i.shed  Episcopacy.  As  long  as  the  contest  wa:«  confined  to  the  regu- 
lar combatants*,  it  ))chooved  all  outsiders  to  remain  hors  ik  cotnlxtt ; 
and  so  far,  we  believe,  not  a  single  Baptist  editor  or  contributor 
has  discharged  a  Hiflgle  shot.  Fully  as-surcd  of  the  slrcnglli  and 
prowess  of  the  champion  already  engaged,  and  of  the  impregnabil- 


3t6  APPENDIX. 

ity  of  liis  position,  they  seem  to  have  scrupulously  avoided  all  par- 
ticipation in  the  debate.  But  certain  modes  of  attacli  adopted  by 
these  straggling  assailants,  can  be  fairly  met  only  by  a  force  from 
without.  It  is,  therefore,  as  an  act  of  simple  justice  to  the  editor  of 
the  Baptist,  that  we  have  taken  up  our  pen  in  his  defence. 

The  editor  of  the  "  Texas  Advocate,"  in  quite  a  long  article 
touching  the  discussion,  wisely  declines  arguing  the  question,  and 
offers  the  excuse  that  he  is  at  so  great  a  distance  from  the  scene  of 
controversy.  Then  why  does  he  allude  to  it  at  all  ?  The  editorial 
referred  to,  contains,  among  other  things,  statements  injurious  to 
the  character  of  the  editor  of  the  "  Baptist."  The  subject  of  the 
controversy  is  one  in  whichhthe  Methodist  subscribers  of  the  "  Texas 
Advocate  "  are  vitally  interested.  Now,  Mr.  Gillespie  refrains  from 
the  discussion  of  this  question  in  which  his  readers  are  so  directly 
and  personally  concerned,  because,  forsooth,  his  paper  docs  not  cir- 
culate very  extensively  in  the  locality  of  the  Baptist  paper;  while 
he  does  not  scruple  to  diffuse  among  his  subscribers  representations 
concerning  a  distant  minister  of  the  gospel,  adapted  to  injure  him 
where  he  is  unknown.  Now,  would  it  not  have  been  more  manly, 
not  to  say  christian,  either  to  have  passed  it  by  unnoticed,  or  to 
have  attempted  a  refutation  of  the  arguments  presented,  rather 
than  to  have  made  a  personal  assault  upon  the  Baptist  editor,  when 
he  knew  him,  by  his  distance,  uuable  to  vindicate  his  character? 

We  are  sure  Mr.  Gillespie  would  not  have  ventured  to  assert  in 
East  Alabama,  what  he  has  done  in  his  Texas  sheet,  concerning  the 
belligerant  propensity  of  Brother  Henderson,  and  his  failures  in  con- 
troversy. The  writer  of  this  communication  has  known  Brother 
Henderson  intimately  for  a  number  of  years,  and  he  has  never  Jcnmcn 
or  heard  of  his  having  been  engaged  in  a  cojitroversy  with  another  denomina- 
tion, previous  to  the  one  noio  pending.  We  have,  moreover,  inquired  of 
others,  who  knew  him  before  our  acquaintance  with  him,  and  the 
invariable  testimony  is,  that  he  has  never  been  known  to  be  en- 
gaged in  a  controversy  on  a  subject  upon  which  Baptists  and  other 
denominations  were  at  issue,  until  the  present  time.  Now,  Mr.  Gil- 
lespie afiflrms  it,  as  a  veritable  matter  of  history,  that  Bro.  Hender- 
son has  a  decided  penchant  for  controversy,  and  has  been  signally 
unsuccessful  in  past  rencontres.  We  are  not  one  of  those  excessive- 
ly nervous  individuals,  who  are  shocked  at  the  very  mention  of 
controversy,  but  believing  that  the  charge  was  made  with  the  de 


APPENDIX.  377 

sign  of  forestalling  and  prejudicing  the  minds  of  Texan  Methodists 
against  the  force  of  certain  un-^velcorac  truths,  vre  hare  taken  some 
pains  to  ascertain  the  facts,  and  thus  publicly  to  proclaim  them. 
We  now  take  leave  of  Mr.  Gillespie,  and  call  upon  him  either  for 
the  proof  of  his  statement  or  its  recantation. 

But  we  will  not  close  this  communication  without  alluding  to  the 
course  of  a  few  of  the  political  papers,  in  reference  to  this  discus- 
sion. We  allude  particularly  to  the  •  Montgomery  Advertiser,'  and 
the  'Columbus  Times  and  Sentinel.'  These  journals,  whose  con- 
ductors are  of  Methodist  proclivities,  have  attempted  to  silence 
controversy  by  "  frowning  upon  the  discourtesy"  very  caulmtshj. 
The  fear  of  losing  a  respectable  portion  of  their  subscribers,  no 
doubt,  has  taught  them  this  caution;  but  that  they  are  not  neutral 
is  very  evident,  from  the  tone  of  their  paragraphs.  Such  expres- 
sions as  "  intolerance,"  "  war  among  the  Churches,"  "  the  Baptist 
editor  refused  to  make  the  amende  Jwnoralle,^'  &c.,  show  the  leaning 
of  their  sentiments,  and  are  offensive  to  Baptists.  Until  recently, 
wc  had  never  dreamed  that  Methodism  was  so  immaculate,  that  no 
one  might  discuss  or  oppose  the  system  without  being  guilty  of  pro- 
fanity. The  cry  of  "  intolerance"  or  "  persecution,"  when  investi- 
gation is  proposed  into  the  political  tendencies  of  a  Church  govern- 
ment, is  a  most  pitiable  confession  of  weakness.  If  it  cannot  bear 
the  ordeal  of  free  discussion,  and  needs  the  outcry  of  '•  persecution" 
to  shield  it,  the  system  must  be  deplorably  rotten.  The  spirit  of 
the  age  is  inquiry;  and  every  measure  or  economy  demanding  the 
adherenoo  oi"  men,  must  be  submitted  to  the  blazing  torch  of  en- 
lightened investigation.  If  it  be  genuine,  it  will  bear  the  most 
fiery  test,  and,  like  gold,  will  come  out  the  purer.  If  spm-ious,  then 
the  sooner  it  is  exposed  and  crumbles  to  dust  the  better.  And  It  is 
obligatory  upon  every  one  to  employ  all  fair  means  in  his  power  to 
eradicate  error,  and  nothing  but  the  sheerest  Jesuitism  will  attempt 

to  oppose  him. 

AMICri'S  JUSTITLK. 

E. 

In  saying  that  " Eplficopacy  may  well  afford  to  place  lier  mitre 
upon  the  heads  .of  such  men  as  McKi;.vi)kke  and  Bascom,  if  for  iio- 
33         ■  V 


378  APPENDIX. 

thing  else,  to  purchase  an  indemnity  from  their  merciless  castiga- 
tions,"  it  is  affirmed  that  we  surely  cannot  believe  our  own  insinu- 
ation ! — that  it  is  quite  unworthy  of  us !  To  what  extent  we  have 
done  Dr.  Bascom  injustice  in  the  in-emises,  may  be  still  farther  as- 
certained by  the  following  letter,  addressed  to  the'  Rev.  D.  B. 
Dorset,  who  was  suspended  from  the  ministry  by  the  Balti- 
more Conference,  in  1827,  for  the  part  he  took  in  promoting  the 
circulation  of  the  "  Mutual  Rights  of  ministers  and  members  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church," — a  paper  devoted  to  the  advocacy  of 
such  a  reformation  in  the  Methodist  polity,  as  would  give  the  laity 
a  REFEESEXTATioN  in  its  couucils.  "Who  would  ever  suppose  that  a 
man  who  could  write  thus,  would  ever  afterward  accept  the  '•  chief 
seat "  in  the  "  star  chamber?"  That  a  man  who  could  characterize 
the  decision  of  an  ecclesiastical  judicatory,  as  an  "  overbearing  act 
of  abandoned  tyranny !" — as  perpetrating  a  "  labored  deed  of  hard- 
earned  infamy!" — as  holding  a  "  lordly  inquisition  over  the  rights 
and  consciences  of  those  who  have  too  much  intelligence  and  too 
much  candor  to  think  and  act  by  their  proscription !" — nay,  that  he 
should  more  than  insinuate,  that  this  same  assemblage  of  Church 
dignitaries  should  "  seek  to  increase  the  iiENTAL  inquietude,  to  strengthen 
desolation  withoid,"'  of  their  doomed  victim.  "  and  so  send  him  to  a 
PEEMATURE  GRAVE!!" — that  such  a  man  should  afterwards  accept 
the  highest  ofSce  which  such  a  body  as  this  could  confer,  we  believe 
can  only  be  accounted  for  as  we  have  stated,  to  wit :  That  the 
"  blushing  honors"  of  "  our  Ei)iscopacy"  struck  the  "  eloquent  Bas- 
com" with  a  kind  of  mental  and  moral  paralysis.  But  here  is  the 
letter — it  is  written  over' the  signature  of  ''  Vdcdex  :" 

"xlprtZ  27,  1827. 
•'  My  dear  sir  : — Not  knowing  jowj^ersonally,  nor  the  pUwe  of  your 
residence,  I  ask  the  privilege  of  addressing  you  through  the  medi- 
um of  the  Mutual  Rights,  for  apitroving  and  recommending  of  which. 
you  now  stand  s;<S(Ue;jf/a/ as  a  Methodist  travelling  preacher!  The 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurch — 
with  three  or  more  bishops  present  to  direct  and  shape  its  measures 
—have,  by  a  solemn  resolution,  after  several  days  deliberation,  oM- 
cialhj  decided  that  a  presbyter  in  the  Church  of  God  deserves  pun- 
ishment and  disgrace,  because  he  adopts  opinions  and  sentiments,  on 


APPENDDi.  3  TO 

tlie  subject  of  ChiU'ch  goverument,  which  are  received  and  acted 
upon  by  a  large  majority  of  Protestant  Christians,  throughout  the 
various  divisions  of  the  religious  world  !  •  I  cannot  pause,  my  bro- 
ther, to  write  the  many  denunciations  that  coramon  sense,  through- 
out an  outraged  community,  will  pronounce  upon  this  overbearing 
act  of  abandoned  tyianny !  But  I  hasten  to  enquire  wliy  were  yoii 
selected  as  the  victim,  the  sole  victim,  when  it  was  in  proof  before 
them  that  others  were  in  the  same  condemnation !  Why  did  not 
'  my  lord  of  Caterbury'  who  '  rides  in  the  whirlwind  and  directs 
the  storm '  among  you,  and-  by  whom  even  bishops  are  tithed  at 
will,  together  with  the  active  and  zealous  doctor,  the  principal  offi- 
cer in  the  '  star  chamber,'  select  a  goodly  number  of  victims,  and 
offer  an  appalling  hecatomb  at  once !  Was  it  because  heaven  had 
deprived  you  of  health  ?  Was  it  because  yon  were  remote  from 
home  and  friends?  Was  it  because,  like  your  Master,  you  were 
poor,  and  with  the  humble  sharer  of  fortunes  '  had  scarcely  where 
to  lay  your  head  ?'  Did  they  wish,  by  increasing  your  mental  in- 
quietude, to  strengthen  the  desolation  tdthout,  and  so  send  you  to 
a  premature  grave  ?  Or  was  it  intended  by  the  horror  of  the  exam- 
ple made  of  you,  to  say  to  other  reformers,  '  If  you  have  the  word, 
we  have  the  smotc/."  I  cannot  refrain  from  asking  where  three  or 
four  members  of  the  Baltimore  Confcrei:ce  were  dujing  (his  labored 
dted o/ HAPiD-EARNED  INFAMY?  Did  they  sit  by  in  inglorious 
silence?  But,  my  brother,  be  not  discouraged;  recollect  that  the 
great  father  of  us  all  as  Methodists,  was  by  a  similar  body  and  in 
the  same  city  forty  years  ago,  declared  unworthy  of  a  name  or  place  in 
that  communion,*  in  the  bosom  of  which  you  now  find  yourself  Ao«- 
orahly  degraded.  'When  Mr.  Wesley  was  informed  of  this,  he  declared 
in  a  letter  now  in  my  possession,  that  the  American  bishop  had  '  no 
more  connection  with  him,'  But  I  trust  you  will  not  so  decide  in 
relation  to  your  blinded  and  prejudiced  brethren.  '  Yet  a  little 
while,'  and  this  stupid,  LauJean  zeal  will  be  cooled  in  the  humilia- 
tion and  disgrace  of  your  persecutors;  public  indignation  will  chas- 
tise their  pitiful  pretensions  to  lordly  inquisition  over  the  rights  and 
consciences*  of  tho.?e  who  have  too  much  intelligence  and  too  much 
candor  to  think  and  act  by  their  prescription !    To  conclude,  my 

•  Alladine  to  tlie  aelion  of  the  General  Conference ,  in  1787,  in  votintr  llie  name  of 
John  Wi-sley  from  Uie  miiiutcf.  VVesnpposc  thin  \va»  fn  revenge  for  Mr.  Woslty'isa)  • 
Inif  in  his  leltrr  to  Mr.  A»bory,  **  Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  KOOL,  a  Rascal,  a 
stoiNDRri,,  Imii  fhcy  iliall  never  by  my  consent  call  me  a  Bi«iior." 


380  APPENDIX.. 

dear  sir,  I  beg  yoa  to  accept  the  best  wishes  of  a  stranger;  '  faint 
not  in  the  day  of  evil;'  the  honorary  overthrow  you  have  sustained" 
for  the  rights  of  conscience,  will  make  strangers  your  friends  :  on 
hearing  of  the  treatment  you  and  others  received  at  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  ten  or  twelve  persons  within  my  charge  have  declared 
for  reforvi.  and  are  ready  to  aid  you  with  their  influence  and  purses. 
Wishing  the  speedy  restoration  of  your  health,  and  that  you  may 
live  to  see  the  cause  of  religious  oppression  banished  from  the 
Church  and  the  world, 

I  remain  yours  in  the  kingdom  and  patience  of  Jesus, 

YINDEX. 
'•Rev.  D.  B.  DoESKT." 


F. 

That  we  have  rightly  construed  the  above  clause  in  the  Discipline, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  To  prove  this,  we  introduce  tlie 
following  remarks  of  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Jour- 
nal, published  in  the  City  of  New  York;  the  parent  of  all  the  family 
of  Advocates  now  in  the  United  States.  He  says:  "  Now,  whatever 
others  may  think,  the  Methodists  have  always  professed  to  believe 
that  the  Head  of  the  Church  still  gives  us  pastors  and  teachers. 
#  *  *  *  *  rp Q  these  [pastors  and  teachers]  we  accord  the  scrip- 
tural authority  of  admitting  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Lord's  house, 
such  as  believe  through  their  word. 

"  We  know  nothing  of  the  right  of  the  Society  to  admit  members 
into  Church  fellowship;  and  the  Methodist  preacher  who  concedes 
this  right,  betrays  his  trust,'^nd  should  be  held  amenable  for  his  de- 
linquency to  his  brethren.       *       *       ******* 

'•  But  whatever  controversy  may  exist  on  this  question,  elsewhere, 
or  however  it  may  have  been  settled  among  other  denominations, 
it  is  certain  that  the  right  of  the  ^ociety  to  admit  and  expel  Church 
members,  is  not  Wcsleyan  nor  Episcopalian  Church  Methodism. 
•We  have  no  such  practice,  neither  any  of  the  Churches'  acting 
under  our  Discipline. 

"  The  admission  and  expulsion. of  Church  members,  by  a  vote  of  the 
Society,  is  as  .vbsurd  in  tiieouy  as  it  would  be  ruinous  in  practice."' 
—Quoted  by  Rev.  J.  R.  Graves,  in  the  Iron  Wheel,  pp.  243-244. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


FormL9 — 15to-10,'48(B1039)444 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


8340     A  discussion  on 
K3^d__J:iefeiiodist_Ea3iS!^ 
cocacy* 


AA    000  701  499    6 


BX 

8340 

H18d 


